Ten years ago, I identified what I considered to be the “ten core demographics” that proponents of the ideas we discuss here at ATS will have to reach in order to eventually find the Holy Grail. The original piece is available here. It is interesting to evaluate the status of each of these ten demographics (which are really collections of sub-demographics) a decade later in light of the current uprising. Here is where things seem to stand. The parts in italics are from the original piece.
Whatever one thinks of “nationalism” on an abstract level, the idea of local sovereignty, voluntary associations, intentional communities, eco-villages, startup societies, free cities, and micronations is a preferable alternative to both conventional statism (whether capitalist, communist, or fascist) and the impossible concept of “world domination anarchism.” Take that, O’ Goofy One.
By CW Ensor
Sovereign Counties is a new project that has given its endorsement to Attack the System. The Foundation for Intentional Community is an interesting group as well, and seems to be a domestic parallel to the Startup Societies Foundation. Also, see my essay “The Case for the City-State System.”
The ideas of sovereign counties, intentional communities, and startup societies is really the only set of ideas that we non-world dominationist anarchists need to be promoting among the left, right, center, all religions and ethnic groups, all philosophical and ethical systems, and all subcultures, countercultures, and youth cultures. These ideas provide the framework for Anthony Sutton’s “voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies” as an alternative to imperialism, and Gene Roddenberry’s ideal of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations.” I even know Trumpists or Democratic Party voters who like the ideas we discuss at ATS but still vote for one of the major parties out of “fear of the other.”
Sovereign Counties is a movement to create intentional communities governed by the consensus of county residents. Conventionally, members of an intentional community found the community, so all members accept its principles from the outset. In the longer run, new members are born into the community and remain into adulthood by choice while members falling outside of an evolving consensus leave. Counties can become intentional communities in the latter sense. Discuss conventional communities here.
The Foundation for Intentional Community (FIC) defines an intentional community as a group of people who have chosen to live together or share resources on the basis of common values. You may have heard of a commune, ecovillage, cohousing, coliving or student coop. These are all types of intentional communities – models for more cooperative, sustainable and just ways of life. FIC curates a directory of over 1,000 communities worldwide, as well as supplies resources, runs educational events and promotes community classifieds. Support our work by making a donation today!
A startup society is typically a small territorial experiment in government. For centuries, innovators have created enclaves to escape institutional barriers. America itself was created to escape religious persecution in Europe. The startup societies of today are making the world into a more diverse and competitive place.
By Vanessa Taylor
With a series of uprisings gripping the United States, President Trump has not hidden his disdain for protesters. Beyond his threats to Minneapolis protesters and questionable executive orders, Trump has time and time again directed his ire at one particular group: “anarchists.” Trump’s constant invoking of anarchists to describe all protesters generally is a calculated attempt to delegitimize ongoing struggles — that much can clearly be seen in one of Trump’s tweets from earlier this week, where he wrote that protesters in Portland and Seattle were “actually … sick and deranged anarchists and agitators.”
The immediate knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s baiting is to often argue that the people taking to the streets in Portland — a city that has been under siege by mysterious federal agents — and Seattle are merely “protesters” and not “anarchists.” But remember the old saying: A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump may not be honest in his portrayal of anarchists, and he certainly does not have a clear view of the ongoing protests, but to deny anarchists’ presence altogether would be just as bold of a lie as the president’s.
Mikhail Bakunin was an early theorist of anarchist revolution AND and an early anarchist critic of authoritarian leftism. Today’s anarchists need to be reading Bakunin, and not “critical race theory,” and today’s critics of PC culture need to be reading Bakunin and not watching Dave Rubin.
Source: Bakunin on Anarchy, translated and edited by Sam Dolgoff, 1971;
See Also: Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy by Karl Marx, 1874.
Statism and Anarchy is the first completed volume of a larger projected work by Bakunin. Written in Russian, with special emphasis on Slavic problems, this work tremendously influenced Russian revolutionary thought.
In the first extract, “Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State,” Bakunin, without specifically naming Marx, nevertheless lays the groundwork for attacking what he saw as Marx’s “statism”.’
A reader points out a glaring weakness that is found in the full range of anti-state movements.
I’ve been thinking over for a while now how it is that people who are ostensibly anti-state in theory can end up defending the state in practice, all the while still believing in their own minds that they remain as anti-state as ever.
This could apply to many people — whether we’re talking about left anarchists who reject the state in theory but in practice so prioritize social justice (as they see it) that they seem blind as to how that ideology can be almost effortlessly co-opted by both the state proper and the corporate power structure (as you’ve pointed out). This could also apply to various liberals and progressives who profess to be anti-war but learn to be okay with both the imperial project and the national security state when someone like Obama is in charge (and before Obama, Clinton). This could also apply to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who on the level of theory recognize the dangers and illegitimacy of corporate economic power buttressed by state power, but who in practice end up wasting time defending McDonalds and Walmart as though they were the true underdogs in our society.
I came across this recent statement from a leftist activist. The comments below were made as part of a wider argument that opposition to PC is nothing more special pleading by reactionaries who merely want to be exempt from criticism, which is the standard leftist reply to criticisms of “wokeness.”
No that’s the thing: the right won near-total political power & they still can’t be happy because they lack cultural hegemony. They wanted power by any means & now they have it & it’s ashes in their mouths b/c they get no respect, everybody despises them, it’s their monkey’s paw.
These comments are a perfect example of someone who comes close to scoring the winning touchdown and drops the ball as the last second. The USA is certainly a “far-right” nation in the realm of foreign policy (a Romanesque uber-imperialism). The US class system has moved past mere center-right neoliberalism toward a full-blown right-wing plutocracy of the kind found in pre-modern and contemporary “Third World” societies. The US has the largest police state of any country that is a formal democracy, and the highest incarceration rate of any nation (with the possible exceptions of China and North Korea, two outright totalitarian regimes). If you define “right-wing” as retrograde authoritarianism (as most leftists do) then, yes, the right has “near-total political power” in the US.
This is the kind of discussion that needs to happen more often. These two guys represent the best of the Left and Right.
In which A & B discuss C.H.A.Z. / C.H.O.P., explore the philosophical concepts of liberty and autonomy, and comment on the concept of ‘White Fragility’
Amory Devereux and Bellamy Fitzpatrick discuss the current situation of widespread protests and riots throughout the Western world, BLM, and the theoretical connections between shared values and the need to defend them.
The discussion of the condition of the North American anarchist milieu is spot on. In the space of 100 years, anarchists have gone from being hated foreign terrorists (like today’s Islamists) to being the subject of puff pieces in teenybopper magazines, and the shock troops of the ruling class ideology who waste time getting into confrontations with other marginal extremists.
Setting the scene – light vs. dark – anarchist vs. reactionary
Binge drinking comes to France!
The degeneration of intergenerational community
Bellamy deftly ties it back to the State
Soft power. permissiveness and Brave New World
Why is Anarchism in Teen Vogue?
From Terrorists to Activists in 100 years
Bringing the Fringe into the Fold
Pipers and Catchers
Repackaging and Shaving off the Rough Edges of Ideology
Anarchists as shocktroopers of the Wokeness
By Per Bylund
As libertarians, we like to discuss two things: what could be and what is wrong with society today. Some of us are intrigued by the promises of a free society, no matter if we advocate the total abolishment of the State or wish to radically cut back on its powers. It kind of sets your mind free to dream of all the things that could be weren’t it for the welfare-warfare State.
Some libertarians feel the adrenaline flowing when talking about the injustice caused people by the State: about immigrants being forced back to torture because they are not the “legal” kind; about poor people kept out of the labor market by minimum wage laws; about small business owners forced into bankruptcy because of totally unnecessary regulations and restrictions; about average Joes being forced off their property for the “common good”; about people literally being taxed to death.
by Members of Black Rose Anarchist Federation
Fifty days into the popular uprising sparked by the police murder of George Floyd and demonstrations in Portland, Oregon show little sign of abating.
In fact, Portland has now become a proving ground for the Trump administration to demonstrate its ‘law and order’ bona fides in the run up to the 2020 election.
Federal police, with little information available as to which agencies they specifically work for, have become more active in the repression of demonstrations in the city. A number of recent videos have captured this secret police force, members of which wear military fatigues, grabbing demonstrators off the street and shuttling them away in unmarked vehicles.
We caught up with a member of our Portland local to find out more about what’s been happening on the ground.
Black Rose / Rosa Negra (BRRN): Can you briefly describe the last few months of the uprising in Portland?
In which A & B expand on the ideas of pan-secessionism, and also consider the spiritual and ecological motivations for non-societal approaches to living.
Having established a general overview of humanity arrived at its current juncture, A & B now start to lay out ‘what can be done’, in very broad strokes. Bellamy starts to lay out what pan-secessionism would look like.
This isn’t a bad article, particularly considering it is from a mainstream source.
By Patrick J. Kiger
How Stuff Works
You may have seen TV footage of black-clad, masked protesters, smashing storefront windows and spray-painting their logo — an ‘A’ inside a circle — on buildings on the eve of President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. Or, viewed news stories about similarly clad dissidents throwing rocks and firebombs at police in the streets of Portland, Oregon, as a May Day march for immigrant and workers’ rights suddenly turned into a melee [sources: Stockman, Ryan].
Those clashes — and countless others that have erupted over the years in cities across the U.S. and Europe — might give the impression that anarchists are simply out to create disorder and chaos. But there’s a whole lot more to anarchism than that. It’s a political philosophy that’s been around since the mid-1800s and traces its roots back to ancient Greece and China, as well as to the ideas of thinkers such as Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy [sources: Woodcock, Buckley].
I disagree that the existence of the Electoral College or the bicameral Congress is the main thing that is wrong with the current system. It is not unreasonable to have institutional mechanisms to prevent mob rule. The main problem is that, if you read the enumerated powers and examine the context in which they were written, it is clear the US was always intended to be a plutocracy of industrialists, merchants, landlords, and bankers.
Perfect. An essentially pan-anarchist/anarcho-pluralist flag with enough of historic American populism to bring in the sovereign citizens, boogaloo, radical libertarians, and gun nuts. Well done.
A simple but direct video that deals with a basic problem. The speaker describes how anarchists need to establish an independent position that is separate from the Left, Right, and Third Position. I’ve tried working with all three over the past three decades, and all three are generally worthless. Given the enormous range of anarchist thought, the elastic nature of anarchist philosophy, and the way that many other ideological currents feed into anarchism, it would seem all we really need is to build anarchism in the Gramscian sense and let everyone else catch up as needed.
A problem with this meme is that there is no consensus among hyphenated anarchists on what the state actually is, what ending the state would actually mean, how the state would be ended, why the state should be ended, or whether ending the state should even be a priority.