Illegalist anarchism

[BIXX]

How do you guys feel about it?

I feel that it's a good idea. I have no problem with stealing or other illegal acts in general, as long as they are not hierarchical or oppressive.

Thoughts?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Historically interesting, strategically lacking.

Anarchism (whether illegalist, syndicalist, platformist, insurrectionary, pacifist, etc.) has an unfortunate history of conflating tactics with strategies and visions. I think, as part of a holistic movement, robbing banks and lobbing bombs into cafes might have their place. However, the idea that the individual can liberate themselves by breaking enough rules, or that collective liberation can come about by enough people breaking enough rules (and obviously I'm simplifying - forgive me), is silly.

Bigger toolbox, plz.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Insurrectionary anarchism isn’t a morality on survival: we all survive in various ways, often in compromise with capital, depending on our social position, our talents and tastes. We certainly aren’t morally against the use of illegal means to free ourselves from the fetters of wage slavery in order to live and carry on our projects, yet we also don’t fetishize illegalism or turn it into some kind of religion with martyrs; it is simply a means, and often a good one.

.

[boiler]

Sounds interesting, what is Illegalist anarchism?

[bcbm]

unless you are looking to die in a hail of machine gun fire or go to jail forever i don't think it has much to offer.

[bcbm]

Sounds interesting, what is Illegalist anarchism?

an outgrowth of turn of the century individualist anarchism advocating criminality as a means for personal liberation, as well as contributing to a larger climate of revolt.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Not this shit again.

Stealing my Blu-Ray player is so revolutionary, folks. Hell, we'll have worldwide socialism if someone can pull off a toyshop heist!

[BIXX]

Historically interesting, strategically lacking.

Anarchism (whether illegalist, syndicalist, platformist, insurrectionary, pacifist, etc.) has an unfortunate history of conflating tactics with strategies and visions. I think, as part of a holistic movement, robbing banks and lobbing bombs into cafes might have their place. However, the idea that the individual can liberate themselves by breaking enough rules, or that collective liberation can come about by enough people breaking enough rules (and obviously I'm simplifying - forgive me), is silly.

Bigger toolbox, plz.

Well, no where in illegalism does it state that it is the only way to liberate yourself. It just is the statement that it is one of the ways, as far as I can tell.

But the general vibe I'm getting is that people here don't see much of a problem with it as a theory (meaning they might work with an illegalist)?



unless you are looking to die in a hail of machine gun fire or go to jail forever i don't think it has much to offer.

Well, I mean, do you think it can contribute to a climate of revolt/be a means of personal liberation (in conjunction with other means, I course).

[bcbm]

But the general vibe I'm getting is that people here don't see much of a problem with it as a theory (meaning they might work with an illegalist)?

i think there could be some use for criminality as a tactic but i don't think it is very useful as a strategy, as the history of such shows. i don't know in what context someone like a syndicalist would work with an illegalist. the latter might funnel funds to a union or something, but basic security culture would necessitate a great deal of discretion.


Well, I mean, do you think it can contribute to a climate of revolt/be a means of personal liberation (in conjunction with other means, I course).

i think it can be individually empowering, or to a small group, but beyond that i don't see much impact. the localized vandalism actions of many anarchists haven't resonated outside of the milieu to any measurable degree that i can tell and i don't see how upping the ante and robbing banks or the like would bring anything more to the table.

[Creative Destruction]

Illegalism is based on personal liberation and gain rather than class or social liberation. I don't see it morally separate from a banker or investor who is able to rip off a whole bunch of people.

[bcbm]

Illegalism is based on personal liberation and gain rather than class or social liberation. I don't see it morally separate from a banker or investor who is able to rip off a whole bunch of people.

i dunno i think the person ripping off a banker is better than the banker ripping people off

[WilliamGreen]

Personal opinion is that it should be used in a broader campaign. Both in an individual campaign or as that of a united front.

An ethos is important, or else your just a thief and without a lot of strategy and accompanying operations these acts won't shake the system or even hurt those with large sets of capital. The losses will just be taken out of the lowest workers pocket and those with minimum holdings in large corporations.

Always have to think of the bigger picture. Something our movement is highly lacking.

[BIXX]

Illegalism is based on personal liberation and gain rather than class or social liberation. I don't see it morally separate from a banker or investor who is able to rip off a whole bunch of people.

Well, personal liberation is also important (as long as you don't just fuck people over who weren't previously fucking people over). True personal liberation can only come with the liberation of everyone, so the idea that it's only for personal liberation I would say is incorrect.


Personal opinion is that it should be used in a broader campaign. Both in an individual campaign or as that of a united front.

An ethos is important, or else your just a thief and without a lot of strategy and accompanying operations these acts won't shake the system or even hurt those with large sets of capital. The losses will just be taken out of the lowest workers pocket and those with minimum holdings in large corporations.

Always have to think of the bigger picture. Something our movement is highly lacking.

Like I say, don't fuck people over who weren't previously fucking people over.

And whatever you do, don't get caught.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

it's not a strategy. It might be a tactic as part of a wider strategy, but as has been said, shifting the social horizon in society cannot be done by robbing banks of a few million or stealing some cars.

Actually, the Red Army Faction writings are quite good on this subject (I find them interesting as a leftist and a historian, anyway), although it is debatable to what extent they truly believed some of the stuff they wrote. They wrote a lot about their own struggle being a small part of a wider struggle, but then they also write about being unable to work with other people they describe as 'sincere comrades'.

The problem with that sort of tactic being employed as strategy is that it becomes, for various reasons, difficult to connect with other means of class struggle - mass strike and so on. Thus it becomes something of an isolationist strategy, and can lose all resonance within the class struggle, as happened with the RAF, for example.

[Ele'ill]

Personal opinion is that it should be used in a broader campaign. Both in an individual campaign or as that of a united front.

personal liberation, killing the cop in your head, is important and of course most of struggle will be illegal


An ethos is important, or else your just a thief and without a lot of strategy and accompanying operations these acts won't shake the system or even hurt those with large sets of capital.

a lot of folks do the illegalist thing better than subculturey illegalist anarchists, some of said folks are probably more anarchist than them too



The losses will just be taken out of the lowest workers pocket and those with minimum holdings in large corporations.

Always have to think of the bigger picture. Something our movement is highly lacking.

Almost anything done to impede capital can be viewed through this lens that 'the workers will be the ones to suffer'

[Sasha]

The RAF where not illegalist anarchists though, they where vanguardist anti-imperialist Leninists.
The fact that they robbed banks etc to fund the struggle says little, even the many Nazi groups did that (the order, nsu etc)

[bcbm]

The problem with that sort of tactic being employed as strategy is that it becomes, for various reasons, difficult to connect with other means of class struggle - mass strike and so on. Thus it becomes something of an isolationist strategy, and can lose all resonance within the class struggle, as happened with the RAF, for example.

i mean the bonnot gang and similar weren't really trying to 'connect with other means of class struggle,' they were just sick of being exploited and decided to strike back by robbing those who were robbing workers. illegalists held the more 'class' oriented anarchists like syndicalists in contempt and would disrupt their meetings and assault them on occasion. they viewed the large, apathetic masses as cowards deserving of little more than scorn, or worse for those who sided with society. armed struggle and the urban guerrilla are a different beast.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The RAF where not illegalist anarchists though, they where vanguardist anti-imperialist Leninists.
The fact that they robbed banks etc to fund the struggle says little, even the many Nazi groups did that (the order, nsu etc)

There was an interesting episode of "Gangland" (IIRC) about an obscure little neo-Nazi outfit called the "Aryan Republican Army" which robbed something like 20 banks, the money from which is suspected to have funded a variety of white supremacist projects, including possibly the Oklahoma City bombing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i mean the bonnot gang and similar weren't really trying to 'connect with other means of class struggle,' they were just sick of being exploited and decided to strike back by robbing those who were robbing workers. illegalists held the more 'class' oriented anarchists like syndicalists in contempt and would disrupt their meetings and assault them on occasion. they viewed the large, apathetic masses as cowards deserving of little more than scorn, or worse for those who sided with society. armed struggle and the urban guerrilla are a different beast.

ah i see. They sound like wankers.

I was reading up on this earlier today and trying to connect all the dots. Would it be correct to say that aufheben/endnotes/Theorie Communiste/communisation are the offspring of illegalism, or did/do they exist side by side?

[Sasha]

No, i would say communisation theory's background is more in autonomous-Marxism and its individualist insurrectionary anarchism that is in direct line from illegalism, but there is ofcourse lots of cross "contemination" as they grew closer to together. And all do of course see the revolution as not a static event but as an continuing process rooted in personal liberation.

[bcbm]

ah i see. They sound like wankers.

no way they invented the getaway car and were the first people to have machine guns used on them. the fuckin' army had to bring them down.

i also overstated the case a little; illegalism predates bonnot and the individualists going back to the 1880s at least and was often used by anarchist-communists to fund their projects or just have revenge. a lot of these types would have the cops come to their door after they did a robbery or burglary and they would just try to knife the cops to death and use their trial to agitate. commendable behavior in all cases.


I was reading up on this earlier today and trying to connect all the dots. Would it be correct to say that aufheben/endnotes/Theorie Communiste/communisation are the offspring of illegalism, or did/do they exist side by side?

psycho is pretty much right on here. i know a lot of people interested in the above who are interested in illegalism as well, but i don't think there is a very large amount of theoretical overlap.