Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

Well, when I think of post-left anarchy I really do think a lot of CrimethInc. - and though I don't know if I can articulate it right now, there's a substantial difference in approach between CrimethInc and pure black.

I also think that pure black is more illegalist than the average individualist or post-lefty. Thinking here about Simons' Illegalist Praxis when I try to gauge what I think he means when he's talking illegalism.
And when I think of pure black (so I guess, in my version of pure black) it is not individualist or egoist at all, so there's that.

Also think the nihilism of pure black implies some anti-civ critique at least, but not necessarily individualism or post-leftism.

Finally, I associate pure black (probably also my version, haha) with a position where people are going hard, getting shit done, so it's more relentless and less half-assed than a lot of what I see in many post-lefties (and anarchists generally, I suppose.)

There's a lot to be said about it. One of the other things I've been chewing on lately is reconciling my thoughts on the desirability of attack and Bellamy's comments in An Invitation to Desertion around how that's not particularly good or useful. This quote is adequate:

To anticipate the anarchist critic: desertion does not necessarily imply that all forms of attentat are to be rejected outright; but it does mean a profound reevaluation of what some anarchists have vaguely taken to calling “attack,” which I feel has been greatly exaggerated in importance, often very misguidedly conducted, commonly easily recuperated by the parasitic social classes, and woefully overshadowing what ought to be the primary goals of desertion, autarky, and reinhabitation. It is only an empty bluff, or a suicidal and mass homicidal impulse, to prioritize attacking civilization when oneself and one’s kin totally depend on its infrastructure and social relations for their survival.
It may very well be necessary and appropriate to resist more confrontationally at certain junctures, but much of anarchist activity these days is a repetitive exercise in self-righteous victimhood, a perpetual motion machine animated by a ressentiment-fueled martyr complex: rioting, aggressively confronting police, destroying public and private property — all of which accomplish next to nothing when civic and economic activity returns to normalcy one or several days later, but which often result in arrests, fines, incarceration, and injury for the activists involved. One attempts to assault directly an enemy who is best equipped and enormously accustomed to absorb and/or crush direct assaults, knowing that they will likely only inflict superficial scratches on their enemy while risking the total destruction of their lives — only a virulently self-sacrificial morality that places catharsis over wisdom could motivate such behavior. One loses, but feels vindicated, justified, and redeemed in their loss, and the oppression they receive only proves their dedication to righteousness and the turpitude of their enemies — and so the cycle continues.

Your thoughts more than welcome. It's also interesting for me some of the disconnnects between my theory and my action because of how the context is limiting.

3

ziq wrote

When you exclude individualism do you mean mutualism?

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I don't really even consider mutualism.

Not sure if this elaboration is what you were looking for, but I don't really understand the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. I think both aren't good. I think it's far more interesting to think about understanding and reframing subjectivity and personhood in terms of multiplicities that bleed into all the various elements of the world beyond it, collective and nonhuman.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

To me, individualism (what I prefer simply to call 'anarchy' since I also think the social/individual dichotomy is bogus and invented by strict collectivists that don't really understand anarchy) just means you don't prioritize the idea of fighting for a rigid pre-defined global communist revolution and instead produce living anarchy everywhere you can in different ways.

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I've experienced too many individualists and especially egoists to have really simplistic ideas of the individual and/or self-interest, that make me associate those views with them.

So in my experience the collectivist side is authoritarian and the individualist side doesn't seem to have a good sense of what an individual is and has a corresponding selfishness that I don't like and think often has affinity with capitalist individualism.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I also avoid egoism (and the term 'post-left') because of those types. But most egoists don't use the word 'individualist', just the other 2.

2