Anarchy as management style?

This article has a rather simplistic view of anarchy, but it relates some of the benefits of non-heirarchical organizational structure: Anarchy as management style?.

Draft Some Group Handbook, Original Variant, Version 0.1, April 15, 2010

Some Group Handbook, Draft, Original Variant, Version 0.1, April 15, 2010

Some Group Handbook

---

Draft, Original Variant, Version 0.1, April 15, 2010

About this Handbook

This handbook is intended as an outline of principles and practices that Some Group has adopted. As time goes on, and details get ironed out, this handbook will evolve. It is expected that, once the group has reached a state of maturity, this Some Group Handbook will have become developed enough to serve as a blueprint for replication of this group’s organization, activities, and efforts in other communities across the nation and around the world.

This Handbook is Fluid

This Some Group Handbook is fluid. All useful information is at most temporarily useful. While every attempt has been made to ensure that information in this handbook is current and accurate, it is expected that this handbook will change and evolve as time goes on. Change, adaptation, and inclusion of new information to this handbook is emphatically encouraged.

Name

Some Group does not yet have a final name. Originally (and currently) referred to simply as “Unschool,” Some Group is looking for a name that accurately reflects the nature of the group. As has been discovered “unschooling” is a term currently in use to describe a subschool of homeschooling, which promotes ideas quite different from those of Some Group. The name “Unschool” has also been criticized for its distinctly negative construction—being the negation of “school”—without offering any hint, in positive form, as to what Some Group might be. A number of alternative names have been proposed, including the possibility of having no name at all. Most of the names proposed, including having no name for the group, have been rejected for a number of practical and/or principled reasons.

Presently, it is understood that the name of Some Group is fluid and indeterminate. It is believed that a name should be chosen, but that an appropriate name will likely reveal itself as the group develops. At some point in the future, it is expected that a name for the group will be chosen. When that happens, this section of the Some Group Handbook should be updated. This description of how Some Group does not have a name should be removed, and replaced with a statement of the group’s name, along with an explanation of any meaning behind the name chosen.

Purpose

Some Group grew out of a sense of discontent with existing social structures and conventional systems of education. However, Some Group has not yet adopted any guiding principles. At present, Some Group is a space or forum where people can share, discuss, create, and explore with others a number of subjects. It is expected that, as Some Group progresses, a common set of principles will naturally emerge, and be adopted by the group. When that happens, this section of the Some Group Handbook should be updated. This description of how Some Group has not adopted principles should be removed, and replaced with a description and explanation of the group’s common principles.

Meetings

Some Group holds a number of different “types” of meetings. Presently, there are two types: regular meetings and organizational meetings. Regular meetings are where Some Group performs its primary activity of exploring various topics of interest. Organizational meetings are dedicated to discussing and selecting logistical details, such as topics for upcoming regular meetings, etc.

Organizational Meetings

Organizational meetings are Some Group meetings with the purpose of choosing details for future regular meetings, and other logistical and/or administrative matters. Any member of Some Group is free to attend and participate in any organizational meeting he/she wishes, and to whatever extent he/she wishes.

When choosing details for an upcoming regular meeting, the following four details will be identified:

• One or more people who will lead the meeting.
• The topic or activity for the meeting.
• The format that will be used for the meeting.
• The date, time, and location of the meeting.

The activity planned for a regular meeting can be anything, and need not be topic-oriented. Meeting activities may include presentations, group discussions, creative projects, or group activities of any sort. The format of a regular meeting is also flexible. It could consist of a short presentation, followed by each participant having five minutes to express their own view, opinion, or perspective. It could be a lecture format, or a lecture followed by discussion. It could take any format the leaders of the meeting believe appropriate for the topic or activity. Whatever meeting details are proposed, all these details (leader(s), topic, format, date, time, and location) should be proposed to the entire group, at the next regular meeting, for approval.

All decisions made at organizational meetings, including selection of meeting details, will be made by a hybrid consensus/voting mechanism. A consensus process will be used whenever possible, encouraging input and participation from all present. If the consensus process ever stalls to the extent that it threatens the very purpose of Some Group, a majority vote will be used to decide the matter. If the consensus process degenerates to voting on a frequent or regular basis, this would indicate an underlying organizational problem which would need to be addressed.

For the sake of convenience, Some Group currently plans to hold organizational meetings immediately prior to, and in the same place as, Some Group’s regular meetings.

Regular Meetings

It is important that all members of Some Group be included in organization of the group. Because people have exhibited a tendency to leave during the course of regular meetings, each regular meeting will start with a brief organizational message consisting, at a minimum, of following:

• A summary of what was discussed at the previous organizational meeting, if an organizational meeting was held since the last regular meeting.
• All proposed details (leader(s), topic, format, date, time, and location) for the next regular meeting.
• Proposed details (date, time, and location) for the next organizational meeting.
• A request that the whole group accept, reject, or modify the proposed meeting details.
• An explicit invitation for anyone in the group to come to, and participate in, every organizational meeting.

The remainder of any regular meeting can take many forms, lead by one or more people, on a specific topic or activity, and in a specific format. Each regular meeting’s details (leader(s), topic, format, date, time, and location) will be as agreed upon by the group during a previous regular meeting.

Communications

Some Group will have a number of means of communicating with its members. Potential means of distributing information include having a blog, an e-mail list, a web forum, a newsletter, etc. In order to maintain Some Group’s inclusiveness and neutrality, any Some Group publications, such as newsletters, blogs, etc., should be open to publish contributions from any and all Some Group members.

Each Some Group meeting (regular, organizational, or otherwise) should be announced, in advance, to all members of the group. Each such announcement should include all meeting details: leader(s), topic, format, date, time, and location. The location of the meeting place should be described in specific enough terms that the meeting can be found by someone who has never attended a previous Some Group meeting.

A digest of each Some Group meeting (regular, organizational, or otherwise) should be published to the group. Each digest should be comprehensive enough to give people who did not attend a good overview of the subject and results of each meeting, but should not be specific enough to constitute meeting minutes. Due to the potential of minutes to violate privacy rights and breed controversy, detailed meeting minutes should not be published. The digests for each meeting, whether posted to Some Group’s blog, e-mail list, or anywhere else, should be posted as separate posts, one for each meeting. Keeping the digests for each meeting separate makes them easier to identify, organize, comment on, etc.

When posting messages to Some Group’s blog, e-mail list, forum, etc., the following guidelines are recommended, but not required:

• POSTING IN ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED YELLING.
• The title or subject of a post or comment should reflect its content.
• Top-posting (“toilet paper quoting”) is considered poor netiquette.
• Posting well-organized thoughts, in grammatical sentences, makes posts easy to read, understand, and respond to.

---

Draft, Original Variant, Version 0.1, April 15, 2010

Meeting Minutes.

Meeting minutes summaries will now be posted weekly, for people that couldn’t show up. We’ve got many weeks that we’ve met, and I’m finally posting the meeting minutes for them. Whew.

First meeting (awhile ago)

The topic was reform vs. revolution. It was discussion-based.

• We went around in a circle and proposed our personal ideas of what is needed to fix deep systemic problems, whether it was reform or revolution based (not violent revolution!)
• Proposed that we be more open, more creative with art, coffeehouses, speakouts, etc
• Emphasized that change of self is very important to whatever movement is going on
• Vigorous application of your ideal self and your potential everyday is a good idea
• For true revolution, EVERYONE needs to be supporters
• Ran into questions of communes working with medicine, supplies, etc (get into that at a later meeting)
• “Things that work, Survive”.
• Talked about the name, unschool, being too abrasive to people.
• Talked about all-one concept: everything is part of the whole
• Discussed the concept of change: People both need to be educated and also empowered to take action
• Art as displaying the beauty and the scale of trying to help everything
• No definitions. No standards.

Second Meeting : Venus project and Zeitgeist movement

• Where do we go from here? Possibilities of technology
• Our current state of affairs is mostly unintentional. Noone wanted war, poverty, etc
• “Spaceship Earth” Concept covered: Earth and all creatures as one, no seperation of nations, people, material, etc
• The idea of competing ideas, not people.
• Technology replacing processes that are menial tasks, more autonomous, more freedom
• Went over social conditioning, false lessons, “Right and Wrong”
• Reforming our world starts with ourselves
• Means need to equal the ends
• Idea of memetics: spreading ideas exponentially
• Voluntary society

Third Meeting: Social Construction. Heated conversation.

• 2 groups: Oppressed and Privileged.
• Privileged group: perpetuated by oppressed, norms, media, power, etc
• Oppressed group internalized message that they should be “normal”
• “Duties” and how that buys into the system, filling “roles”
• Colonization of the mind: Oppressed group is so oppressed they think what they are doing is acceptable and not questionable
• Advocate model: actively resisting norms and standards
• Patriarchy: System run by men for men.
• To be an active resistor, you must learn of your privilege compared to others
• Did pie charts to see how privileged we were. If it was full, you were the most privileged. Mine was full!
• To be “privileged” means the ability to ignore oppression or the ability to recognize it and resist
• If we had a society with no categorization of people, social equity would be reached
• Recognize the imperfection of language
• See people for how they choose to be seen

More meeting minutes coming up next week. Cheers.

Why Property isn’t the Problem

I would agree that every human being has a right to their life and liberty. Property, I disagree with. I think that the problem is not that the government doesn’t respect life, liberty or property- its that people don’t. Human beings don’t respect each other. We dehumanize and objectify. The government is only an extension of these same human beings.

I would argue that there is no such thing as private property. Ultimately, we are all stewards of the things we have. We have borrowed them from the earth. Even our lives are extensions of others, and, I would argue, that the solution is not our autonomy, but our mutual respect and dependence. Interdependence.

I would argue that the solution isn’t as simple as abolishing the government- as long as people still believe that they need the government, they will rebuild it. We must first prove to people that they can be valued as equals vital to our own lives. We have to first recognize and reject the power constructs that our society places on us (racism, sexism, heterosexism ect).

The first step in creating a society that is equitable and just is not abolishing the government, it is learning to live without it. The government, while flawed, forceful and ultimately irrelevant to anyone who refuses to give it legitimacy,  acts as a power enforcing the morals that we can define for ourselves. Yes, I would agree that this is wrong, to have a government force that imposes moral beliefs.

However, in order to have a free society in which all people are respected, we must first respect all people. Capitalism is not the only problem here. The legal system is not the only monster. In order to have a society in which all people can voluntarily do anything, we must also deconstruct the oppressive systems by which we have been socialized.

It’s not enough to dismantle the government- we must first get rid of systems of oppression like racism, heterosexism, sexism, abilism, classism- in short- we must get people to see each other as equals in order for them to treat each other as equals without the force of the government.

But first we must recognize the inequity. It SHOULDN’T matter what color your skin is, your ability, age, expression or sexual history- but in our society, right now, it DOES.

We have to first change this- by recognizing what we share, how we differ, and by respecting each others stories and lives.

The first step towards an anarchist world isn’t getting rid of the government- its recognizing our interdependence without the government telling us to.

Some Pictures of “Funk the War”

What a beautiful Experience. People making music together to promote solidarity and an end to our interventions overseas. 

-LH

Are you a Manarchist?

ARE YOU A MANARCHIST QUESTIONNAIRE

General Questions:

I. Do you ascribe to either:

A) Passive-Aggressive Patriarchy: You often come across as: a victim/helpless/in need/dependent

and you get women in your life to: be your physical and emotional caretakers? buy you things? take care of your responsibilities?
pick up your slack? use guilt or manipulation to get out of your responsibilities and equal share of the work?

Do you treat your female partner like a “mom” or your secretary?

B) Aggressive Patriarchy: Do you often take charge? Assume that a
woman can’t do something right so you do it for her? Believe that only
you can take care of things? Think that you always have the right
answer?
Do you treat your female partner like she’s helpless, fragile, a baby or weak?
Do you put down your partner or minimize her feelings? Do you belittle
her opinions?

2. How do you react when women in your life name something or someone
as patriarchal or sexist? Do you think of her or call her a “PC Thug,”
“Feminazi,” “Thin-skinned,” “Overly-Sensitive, “COINTELPRO-esque”
or “Un-fun?”

3. Do you see talking about patriarchy as non-heroic, a waste of time,
trouble making, or divisive?

4. If a woman asks your opinion, do you assume she must not know
anything about the subject?

5. Do you believe that women have “natural characteristics” which are
Inherent in our sex such as “passive,” “sweet,” “caring,” “nurturing,”
“considerate,” “generous,” “weak,” or “emotional?”

6. Do you make fun of “typical” men or “frat boys” but not ever check
yourself to see if you behave in the same ways?

7. Do you take on sexism and patriarchy as a personal struggle working
to fight against it in yourself, in your relationships, in society,
work, culture, subcultures, and institutions?

8. Do you say anything when other men make sexist or patriarchal
comments?
Do you help your patriarchal and sexist friends to make change and help
educate them? Or do you continue friendships with patriarchal and
sexist men and act like there is no problem.

Activism Questions :

9. As a man, is being a feminist a priority to you? Do you see being
a feminist as revolutionary or radical?

10. Do you think that you define what is radical? Do you suffer from
or contribute to macho bravado” or ‘subpoena envy? (I.e. defining a
true or “cool” and respectable activist as someone who has: been arrested,
done lockdowns, scaled walls, hung banners, done time for their actions
argued or fought with police, done property alterations, beat up nazi
boneheads, etc.)?

11. Do you take something a woman said, reword it and claim it as your
own idea/opinion?

12. Are you taking on the “shit” or “grunt” work in your organizing?
(I.e.: Cooking. cleaning. set up, clean up phone calls, email lists,
taking notes, doing support work, sending mailings, providing
childcare?)
Are you aware of the fact that women often are taking on this work
with no regard or for their efforts?

13. Do you take active step to make your activist groups safe and
comfortable places for women?

14. If you are trying to get more women involved in your activist
projects, do you try to engage them by telling them what’ to do or why they
should join your group?

15. Do you ever find yourself monitoring and limiting your behavior and
speech in meetings and activist settings because you don’t want’ to
take up too much space or dominate the group? Are you aware of the fact that
women do this all the time?

16. Do you pay attention to group process and consensus building in
groups or do you tend to dominate and take charge (maybe without even
realizing it)?

Sexual/Romantic Relationships and Issues :

17. Do you make jokes or negative comments about the sex lives of women
or sex work?

18. Can you only show affection and be loving to your partner in front
of friends and family or only in private?

19. Do you discuss the responsibility for preventing contraception and
getting STD screening prior to sexual contact?

20. Do you repeatedly ask or plead with women for what you want in
sexual situations? Are you aware that unless this is a mutually consented upon
scenario/game that this is considered a form of coercion?

21. During sex, do you pay attention to your partner’s face and body
language to see if she is turned on? Engaged, or just lying there? Do
you ask a woman who she wants during sex? What turns her on?

22. Do you ask for consent?

23. Do you know if your partner has a sexual abuse, rape, or physical
abuse history?

24. Do you stay with your partner in a relationship for comfort and
security? Sex? Financial or emotional caretaking? If you’re not completely happy
or “in love” with your partner anymore? Even though you don’t think it
will ultimately work out? Because you’re afraid or unable to be alone?
Do you suddenly end relationships when a “new” or “better” woman comes
along?

25. Do you jump from relationship to relationship? Overlap them? Or do
you take space and time for yourself in between each relationship to
reflect on the relationship and your role in it? Do you know how to be
alone? How to be single?

26. Do you cheat on your partners?

27. If your girlfriend gets on your case for patriarchal behavior or
wants to try to work on the issues of patriarchy in your relationship,
do you creak up with her or cheat on her and find another woman who
will put up with your shit?

28. Do you agree to romantic commitment and responsibility and then
back out of these situations?

29. Do you understand menstruation?

30. Do you make fun of women or write them off as “PMS-ING?”

Friendship Questions :

31. Do you tend to set the standard and plans for fun or do you work
with the others in the group, including women to see what they want to
do?

32. Do you talk to your female friends about things you don’t talk to
your male friends about especially emotional issues?

33. Do you constantly fall in love with your female friends Are you
friends with women until you find out that they are not in love with you too
and then end the friendships? Are you only friends with women who are
in monogamous or committed relationships with other people?

34. Do you come on to your female friends even jokingly?

35. Do you only talk to your female friends (and not your male friends)
about your romantic relationships or problems in those relationships?

36. Do you find yourself only attracted to “Anarcho-Crusty Punk
Barbie”, Alterna-Grrrl Barbie,” or Hardcore-Grrrl Barbie?” (The idea here being
that the only women you arc attracted to fit mainstream beauty
standards but just dress and do their hair alternatively and maybe have piercings
and tattoos) Do you question and challenge your internalized ideals of
mainstream beauty ideals for women?

37. Have you ever heard of or discussed “sizeism” and do you think it
is low on the oppression scale?

38. Are you aware of the fact that ALL WOMEN, even women in radical
communities, live under the CONSTANT PRESSURE and OPPRESSION of mainstream
patriarchal beauty standards?

39. Are you aware of the fact that many women in radical communities
have had and are currently dealing with eating disorders?

40. Do you make fun of “model-types” or “mainstream” women for their
appearance?

Domestic/Household Questions :

41. When was the last time you walked into your house, noticed that
something was misplaced/dirty/etc. AND did something about it (didn’t just walk
by it, over it, away from it or leave a nasty note about it) even if
it wasn’t your chore or responsibility?

42. Are you constantly amazed by the magical “food fairy” who
mysteriously acquires food, brings it home, puts it away, prepares it in meal form
and then cleans up afterwards?

43. Do you contribute equally to domestic life and work?

44. How many of the following activities do you contribute to in your
home (this is a partal list of what it takes to run a household):
A: Sweep and mop floors and clean carpets
B: Wash and put away dishes
C: Clean stove, countertops, sinks and appliances if they are messy and
each time after you have prepared food
D: Collect money, do food shopping, put away food and make meals for
people you live with
E: Do house laundry (kitchen towels, bathroom hand towels, washable
rugs, etc.)
F: Clean up common room spaces, even if it’s not your chore
G: Pick up other’s slack
H: Deal with garbage, recycling, and compost
I: Take care of bills, rent, utilities
J: Deal with the landscaping and gardening
K: Clean bathrooms and make sure bathroom is clean after you use it
L: Feed, clean up after, and take care of housepets

Children & Childcare :

45. Do you spend time with kids? If you do, do you spend time with
children (yours or anyone’s) in a way that is gendered? (do certain things with
boys and other things with girls?

46. If you are a father, do you CO-parent your children? (Spend equal
time AND energy AND effort AND money to raise them)?

47. Do you make childcare a priority? (at both activist events and in
daily life)

48. Do you help make the lives of single mothers in your life and
community easier by finding out if and how you can assist?

49. Have you politicized your ideas about child rearing and parenthood
radical communities? Do you believe that individuals who are in the
movement have children or that the movement has children?

Multi-Category Questions:

50. When was the last time you showed a woman how to do a task rather
than doing it for her and assuming she couldn’t do it?

51. When was the last time you asked a woman to show you how to do a
task?

52. Do you get emotional needs met by other women, whether or not you
are in a romantic relationship with them? Or do you cultivate caring,
nurturing relationships with other men in which you can discuss your
feelings and get your needs met by them?

53. If a woman discusses with you or calls you out on your patriarchy,
do you make an effort to be emotionally present? Listen? Not
emotionally shut down? Not get defensive? Think about what she said? Admit you
fucked up? Take responsibility/make reparations for the mistakes you made?
Discuss your feelings and ideas with her? Apologize? Work harder on your own
shit to make sure that you don’t make the same mistakes again with her
or other women?

54. Do you look inside yourself to find out why you fucked up in these
relationships and work to both change your behavior and be a better
anti-patriarchy ally in the future?

55. Do you organize regular house meetings or activist meetings to
resolve conflict in the house/group?

56. Do you use intimidation, yelling, getting in someone’s physical space, threatsor violence to get your point across?
Do you create and atmosphere or violence around women or others to threaten them (i.e.: throw
things, break things, yell and scream, threaten, attack, tease or terrorize the
animals or pets of women in your life)?

57. Do you physically, psychologically, or emotionally abuse women?

58. Do the women in your life (mothers, sisters, partners, housemates,
friends, etc.) have to “remind” you or “nag” you or “yell” at you in
order for you to get off your ass and take care of your
responsibilities?

59. Do you talk to other men about patriarchy and your part in it?

60. When was the last time you thought about or talked about any of
these issues other than after reading this questionnaire?

Scoring: ALL MEN need to work on issues of patriarchy, sexism and
misogyny. However, this questionnaire may point out to you areas of particular
focus or concentration for your own anti-patriarchal/sexist/misogynist
process and development.

Copied from: http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/AreyouaManarchist.htm

The structure?

Sorry if I messed with the site- I’ll explain:

I saw whoever modified the site wanted more organization, and I agree. But the way that you did it put specific posts into static pages, which can’t be organized by category or tags, and can’t be archived. Also, the comments on those static pages are much harder to track.

I simply made it easier to categorize and tag things for organization. Now if anyone has something to put on the site, Post it. This way, you can tag and categorize it and it can be archived for later usage when newer posts take its place. The other pages that aren’t under “News/Posts” are static, therefore they are better for reference to specific info that doesnt get updated often.

Once again, sorry, but I feel its a better way to organize, I hope you understand that. Feel free to comment.

No Masters

If you liked school, you’ll love work. The cruel, absurd abuses of power, the self-satisfied authority that the teachers and principals lorded over you, the intimidation and ridicule of your classmates don’t end at graduation. Those things are all present in the adult world, only more so. If you thought you lacked freedom before, wait until you have to answer to shift leaders, managers, owners, landlords, creditors, tax collectors, city councils, draft boards, law courts, and police. When you get out of school you may escape the jurisdiction of some authorities, but you enter the control of even more domineering ones. Do you enjoy being controlled by others who don’t understand or care about your wants and needs? Do you get anything out of obeying the instructions of employers, the restrictions of landlords, the laws of magistrates, people who have powers over you that you would never have given them willingly? And how is it that they get all this power? The answer is hierarchy. Hierarchy is a value system in which your worth measured by the number of people and things you control, and how well you obey those above you. Weight is exerted downward through the power structure: everyone is forced to accept and conform to this system by everyone else. You’re afraid to disobey those above you because they can bring to bear against you the power of everyone and everything under them. You’re afraid to abdicate your power over those below you because they might end up above you. In our hierarchical system, we’re all so busy trying to protect ourselves from each other that we never have a chance to stop and think if this is really the best way our society could be organized. If we could think about it, we’d probably agree that it isn’t; for we all know happiness comes from control over our own lives, not other people’s lives. And as long as we’re busy competing for control over others, we’re bound to be the victims of control ourselves. Even the ones at the very top of the ladder are controlled by their position: they have to work around the clock to maintain it. One false move, and they could end up at the bottom. It is our hierarchical system that teaches us from childhood to accept the power of any authority figure, regardless of whether it is in our best interest or not. We learn to bow instinctively before anyone who claims to be more important than we are. It is hierarchy that makes homophobia common among poor people in the U.S.A.—they’re desperate to feel more valuable, more significant than somebody. It is hierarchy at work when two hundred hardcore kids go to a rock club (already a mistake, but that’s a subject for another article) to see a band, and for some stupid reason the clubowner won’t let them perform: there are two hundred and six people at the club, two hundred and five of whom want the band to play, but they all accept the decision of the clubowner just because he is older and owns the place (i.e. has more financial clout, and thus more legal clout). It is hierarchical values that are responsible for racism (“white people are better than black people”), classism (“rich people are better than poor people”), sexism (“men are better than women”), and a thousand other prejudices that are deeply ingrained in our society. It is hierarchy that makes rich people look at poor people as if they aren’t even human, and vice versa. It pits employer against employee, manager against worker, teacher against student, making people struggle against each other rather than work together to help each other; separated this way, they can’t benefit from each other’s skills and ideas and abilities, but must live in jealousy and fear of them. It is hierarchy at work when your boss insults you or makes sexual advances at you and you can’t do anything about it, just as it is when police flaunt their power over you. For power does make people cruel and heartless, and submission does make people cowardly and stupid: and most people in a hierarchical system partake in both. Hierarchical values are responsible for our destruction of the natural environment and the exploitation of animals: led by the capitalist West, our species seeks control over anything we can get our claws on, at any cost to ourselves or others. And it is hierarchical values that send us to war, fighting for power over each other, inventing more and more powerful weapons until finally the whole world teeters on the edge of nuclear annihilation. But what can we do about hierarchy? Isn’t that just the way the world works? Or are there other ways that people could interact, other values we could live by?

Hierarchy . . . and Anarchy
Resurrecting anarchism as a personal approach to life.

Stop thinking of anarchism as just another “world order,” just another social system. From where we all stand, in this very dominated, very controlled world, it is impossible to imagine living without any authorities, without laws or governments. No wonder anarchism isn’t usually taken seriously as a large-scale political or social program: no one can imagine what it would really be like, let alone how to achieve it—not even the anarchists themselves.

Instead, think of anarchism as an individual orientation to yourself and others, as a personal approach to life. That isn’t impossible to imagine. Conceived in these terms, what would anarchism be? It would be a decision to think for yourself rather than following blindly. It would be a rejection of hierarchy, a refusal to accept the “god given” authority of any nation, law, or other force as being more significant than your own authority over yourself. It would be an instinctive distrust of those who claim to have some sort of rank or status above the others around them, and an unwillingness to claim such status over others for yourself. Most of all, it would be a refusal to place responsibility for yourself in the hands of others: it would be the demand that each of us be able to choose our own destiny.

According to this definition, there are a great deal more anarchists than it seemed, though most wouldn’t refer to themselves as such. For most people, when they think about it, want to have the right to live their own lives, to think and act as they see fit. Most people trust themselves to figure out what they should do more than they trust any authority to dictate it to them. Almost everyone is frustrated when they find themselves pushing against faceless, impersonal power.

You don’t want to be at the mercy of governments, bureaucracies, police, or other outside forces, do you? Surely you don’t let them dictate your entire life. Don’t you do what you want to, what you believe in, at least whenever you can get away with it? In our everyday lives, we all are anarchists. Whenever we make decisions for ourselves, whenever we take responsibility for our own actions rather than deferring to some higher power, we are putting anarchism into practice. So if we are all anarchists by nature, why do we always end up accepting the domination of others, even creating forces to rule over us? Wouldn’t you rather figure out how to coexist with your fellow human beings by working it out directly between yourselves, rather than depending on some external set of rules? Remember, the system they accept is the one you must live under: if you want your freedom, you can’t afford to not be concerned about whether those around you demand control of their lives or not.

Do we really need masters to command and control us? In the West, for thousands of years, we have been sold centralized state power and hierarchy in general on the premise that we do. We’ve all been taught that without police, we would all kill each other; that without bosses, no work would ever get done; that without governments, civilization itself would fall to pieces. Is all this true? Certainly, it’s true that today little work gets done when the boss isn’t watching, chaos ensues when governments fall, and violence sometimes occurs when the police aren’t around. But are these really indications that there is no other way we could organize society? Isn’t it possible that workers won’t get anything done unless they are under observation because they are used to not doing anything without being prodded—more than that, because they resent being inspected, instructed, condescended to by their managers, and don’t want to do anything for them that they don’t have to? Perhaps if they were working together for a common goal, rather than being paid to take orders, working towards objectives that they have no say in and that don’t interest them much, they would be more proactive. Not to say that everyone is ready or able to do such a thing today; but our laziness is conditioned rather than natural, and in a different environment, we might find that people don’t need bosses to get things done. And as for police being necessary to maintain the peace: we won’t discuss the ways in which the role of “law enforcer” brings out the most brutal aspects of human beings, and how police brutality doesn’t exactly contribute to peace. How about the effects on civilians living in a police-protected state? Once the police are no longer a direct manifestation of the desires of the community they serve (and that happens quickly, whenever a police force is established: they become a force external to the rest of society, an outside authority), they are a force acting coercively on the people of that society. Violence isn’t just limited to physical harm: any relationship that is established by force, such as the one between police and civilians, is a violent relationship. When you are acted upon violently, you learn to act violently back. Isn’t it possible, then, that the implicit threat of police on every street corner—of the near omnipresence of uniformed, impersonal representatives of state power—contributes to tension and violence, rather than dispelling them? If that doesn’t seem likely to you, and you are middle class and/or white, ask a poor black or Hispanic man how the presence of police makes him feel. When the standard forms of human interaction all revolve around hierarchical power, when human intercourse so often comes down to giving and receiving orders (at work, at school, in the family, in legal courts), how can we expect to have no violence in our system? People are used to using force against each other in their daily lives, the force of authoritarian power; of course using physical force cannot be far behind in such a system. Perhaps if we were more used to treating each other as equals, to creating relationships based upon equal concern for each other’s needs, we wouldn’t see so many people resort to physical violence against each other. And what about government control? Without it, would our society fall into pieces, and our lives with it? Certainly, things would be a great deal different without governments than they are now—but is that necessarily a bad thing? Is our modern society really the best of all possible worlds? Is it worth it to grant masters and rulers so much control over our lives, out of fear of trying anything different? Besides, we can’t claim that we need government control to prevent mass bloodshed, because it is governments that have perpetrated the greatest slaughters of all: in wars, in holocausts, in the centrally organized enslaving and obliteration of entire peoples and cultures. And it may be that when governments break down, many people lose their lives in the resulting chaos and infighting. But this fighting is almost always between other power-hungry hierarchical groups, other would-be governors and rulers. If we were to reject hierarchy absolutely, and refuse to serve any force above ourselves, there would no longer be any large scale wars or holocausts. That would be a responsibility each of us would have to take on equally, to collectively refuse to recognize any power as worth serving, to swear allegiance to nothing but ourselves and our fellow human beings. But if we all were to do it, we would never see another world war again.

Of course, even if a world entirely without hierarchy is possible, we should not have any illusions that any of us will live to see it realized. That should not even be our concern: for it is foolish to arrange your life so that it revolves around something that you will never be able to experience. We should, rather, recognize the patterns of submission and domination in our own lives, and, to the best of our ability, break free of them. We should put the anarchist ideal (no masters, no slaves) into effect in our daily lives however we can. Every time one of us remembers not to accept the authority of the powers that be at face value, each time one of us is able to escape the system of domination for a moment (whether it is by getting away with something forbidden by a teacher or boss, relating to a member of a different social stratum as an equal, etc.), that is a victory for the individual and a blow against hierarchy.

Do you still believe that a hierarchy-free society is impossible? There are plenty of examples throughout human history: the bushmen of the Kalahari desert still live together without authorities, never trying to force or command each other to do things, but working together and granting each other freedom and autonomy. Sure, their society is being destroyed by our more warlike one—but that isn’t to say that an egalitarian society could not exist that was extremely hostile to, and well-defended against, the encroachments of external power! William Burroughs writes about an anarchist pirates’ stronghold a hundred years ago that was just that.

If you need an example closer to your daily life, remember the last time you gathered with your friends to relax on a Friday night. Some of you brought food, some of you brought entertainment, some provided other things, but nobody kept track of who owed what to whom. You did things as a group and enjoyed yourselves; things actually got done, but nobody was forced to do anything, and nobody assumed the position of chief. We have these moments of non-capitalist, non-coercive, non-hierarchical interaction in our lives constantly, and these are the times when we most enjoy the company of others, when we get the most out of other people; but somehow it doesn’t occur to us to demand that our society work this way, as well as our friendships and love affairs. Sure, it’s a lofty goal to ask that it does—but let’s dare to reach for high goals, let’s not fucking settle for anything less than the best in our lives! Each of us only gets a few years on this planet to enjoy life; let’s try to work together to do it, rather than fighting amongst each other for miserable prizes like status and power.

“Anarchism” is the revolutionary idea that no one is more qualified than you are to decide what your life will be.

—It means trying to figure out how to work together to meet our individual needs, how to work with each other rather than “for” or against each other. And when this is impossible, it means preferring strife to submission and domination.

—It means not valuing any system or ideology above the people it purports to serve, not valuing anything theoretical above the real things in this world. It means being faithful to real human beings (and animals, etc.), fighting for ourselves and for each other, not out of “responsibility,” not for “causes” or other intangible concepts.

—It means not forcing your desires into a hierarchical order, either, but accepting and embracing all of them, accepting yourself. It means not trying to force the self to abide by any external laws, not trying to restrict your emotions to the predictable or the practical, not pushing your instincts and desires into boxes: for there is no cage large enough to accommodate the human soul in all its flights, all its heights and depths.

—It means refusing to put the responsibility for your happiness in anyone else’s hands, whether that be parents, lovers, employers, or society itself. It means taking the pursuit of meaning and joy in your life upon your own shoulders.

For what else should we pursue, if not happiness? If something isn’t valuable because we find meaning and joy in it, then what could possibly make it important? How could abstractions like “responsibility,” “order,” or “propriety” possibly be more important than the real needs of the people who invented them? Should we serve employers, parents, the State, God, capitalism, moral law before ourselves? Who was it that taught you we should, anyway?

-Thank you Crimethink.

All societies

All societies are rational and irrational at the same time. They are perforce rational in their mechanisms, their cogs and wheels, their connecting systems, and even by the place they assign to the irrational. Yet all this presupposes codes or axioms which are not the products of chance, but which are not intrinsically rational either. It’s like theology: everything about it is rational if you accept sin, immaculate conception, incarnation. Reason is always a region cut out of the irrational — not sheltered from the irrational at all, but a region traversed by the irrational and defined only by a certain type of relation between irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, drift. Everything is rational in capitalism, except capital or capitalism itself. The stock market is certainly rational; one can understand it, study it, the capitalists know how to use it, and yet it is completely delirious, it’s mad. It is in this sense that we say: the rational is always the rationality of an irrational. Something that hasn’t been adequately discussed about Marx’s *Capital* is the extent to which he is fascinated by capitalists mechanisms, precisely because the system is demented, yet works very well at the same time. So what is rational in a society? It is — the interests being defined in the framework of this society — the way people pursue those interests, their realisation. But down below, there are desires, investments of desire that cannot be confused with the investments of interest, and on which interests depend in their determination and distribution: an enormous flux, all kinds of libidinal-unconscious flows that make up the delirium of this society. The true story is the history of desire. A capitalist, or today’s technocrat, does not desire in the same way as a slave merchant or official of the ancient Chinese empire would. That people in a society desire repression, both for others and *for themselves*, that there are always people who want to bug others and who have the opportunity to do so, the “right” to do so, it is this that reveals the problem of a deep link between libidinal desire and the social domain. A “disinterested” love for the oppressive machine: Nietzsche said some beautiful things about this permanent triumph of slaves, on how the embittered, the depressed and the weak, impose their mode of life upon us all.” – Gilles Deleuze

revolution

What an indictment of our world that love of freedom and the desire of escape from oppression and hate has to be called “Revolutionary.” Isn’t this normal? Isn’t this the way it should always be? Free to do what we want, free to think what we want, free to be what we want, free to love who and how we want: This is basic, bedrock. A foundation of life. It is true that life can be tough and things aren’t always what they seem but this, this insane atrocity of nature doesn’t even deserve mention in the pages of our bloody history books, films, and fictions, much less become reality. But it has and worse yet, it could again. This then is the reason for revolution. We need revolutions in hearts and minds and souls. We need a revolution inside Mother Earth herself, alive with eternal love and respect and sacred duty to each other: she will give birth to our ever-growing, ever-shining redeemed and hopeful future. It is a revolution against the horrors of death itself.

Thomas Fortenberry