anarresinfoshop wrote

For my part, I apologize for any combativeness that may have been received by my own tone; I totally understand the language barrier thing. I am currently working on my spanish, and can relate to the difficulty in discussing abstract concepts in a second or third language.

In my country, "insurrectionary" has been kind of co-opted by liberals to refer to right-wing agitation since 2021, but before that it was clearly a term that refered to anti-establishment, definitely-not-reactionary activities. This is because of the Jan 6 thing that happened up here in the USA, which is very similar to the events in Brazil in a lot of ways. This also may explain my inquisitiveness/defensiveness, as I've been trying to push back on the use of "insurrectionary" to describe fascists in my own country, you know? It feels like a counter insurgency tactic, here, when liberals have been using the term in that way, so that's just my context with that particular discourse.

Hope you are doing well today, all that aside! Greetings from USA


anarresinfoshop wrote

He was always a contrarian, frankly.

The context for this more recent stuff, is the Reality Winner fuckup by The Intercept's editors. After criticizing how they handled that situation, and the pro-Biden/DNC slant of many of the newer reporters and that same editorial staff, he left, along with another co-founder. So, since then, he's become pretty jaded with anything he sees as liberal, or influenced by liberalism, and also has become more isolated. Ironically, since he has always been a liberal, but is also a contrarian who thinks he is "above that" kind of dichotomy, this led him to be subsumed by the liberal/conservative paradigm which he did not recognize or have any substantial critique of. To people like this, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation because their definitions are all skewed and now they're in a propaganda bubble while thinking they're outside all of the bubbles, looking in at yours. In reality, it is ridiculous to argue that anyone is outside the purview and influence of liberal politics, we are all reckoning with that and staking your identity on being "smarter" or "better informed" or whatever, leads to this kind of error. Paired with a (very unfortunate) certain sense of permission to engage with conservative social maliciousness that comes from being a violent crime/state repression victim (He was kidnapped along with his family in Brazil, as well as being stalked/targeted by American Democratic Party officials during his time in the United States for his journalism), you can kind of see how this has developed into his current personality.

One might note that he is engaging with these alt-right American accounts while he is in Brazil, which kind of removes him from having to reckon directly with the consequences of his speech arguably. One may also note that this shift has all happened post-2020, largely, which was a very isolating and strange year for pretty much everyone.

Call it, journalist-main-character syndrome, I guess. Sad to see, he was a very good (but still liberal) journalist for many years. He is also a big reason for why Bolsonaro is out of power now, still, so it's especially disappointing to see him pursuing this kind of hurtful and damaging politics...and also, just kind of bizarre, frankly.


anarresinfoshop wrote (edited )

OK, I'll shoot haha

I am going to tell people inquiring about the local infoshop that they are eco-fascist, transphobic DGR Derrick Jensen acolytes, because I saw "Little Black Cart" branded bookmarks sitting on a table in the shop this one time when I visited for an event

This was something that a member of Rose City Antifa actually did, in direct private messages sent from their official social media account to a user who inquired about the infoshop and how to get involved.

The fact that, at the time (and now), there are upwards of half of the collective volunteers being queer/trans, and the bookmarks were donated and left by an unknown random (like most of our content at that time) was apparently lost on them. Although, frankly, I think that LBC has a lot of perfectly great content, and it is ridiculous to police what books or zines you are allowed to read in an anarchist infoshop lol.

In case this is not obvious...we have in our library: liberal content, socdem/progressive content, anarchist content, historical texts, authcom content, transhumanist content, technoscientific content, and yes, content from ITS/TK/etc, even some conservative/capitalist theory texts (mostly for laughs, some are caveated with inline critiques written by collective members and anarchist readers who visited the collection at various points and left their thoughts in the text margins), and other controversial texts which are of academic/intellectual significance, which we do not necessarily personally endorse the conclusions or worldviews of...because, well, we are a fucking library lol. A library which focuses specifically on controversial texts which you may not always find in the neighborhood or county libraries, to boot.

Like, what did they think we had in here? A carefully curated, ideologically pure propaganda collection? Our collective members, while united by basic principles, themselves have a diversity of viewpoints and interests...

It is literally our stated purpose to allow people to educate themselves on a variety of subjects in an environment of academic freedom, while simultaneously maintaining an affirming/safer space environment that makes it more possible for people to discuss controversial content in a constructive/interesting way. This, in our view, makes for a much more interesting discursive space, and conversations can be had which are impossible in conventional academia and hegemonic cultural spaces. And it definitely makes for a more interesting conversation, than censoring the available texts to those which are considered "legitimate". I mean, what the fuck kind of library would that make?

Sometimes, I feel that people just don't even think for two seconds before they react. Meh.

The person who RCA sent that DM to, screengrabbed it and gave us a heads up, because they thought it was such a weird thing to say, and they wanted us to know that they were saying stuff like this about us without our knowledge. I believe I kept the screenshot somewhere, despite all the chaos from our moves, because it was funny. But mostly, it's just "meh".


anarresinfoshop wrote

You have a knack for distilling what I took paragraphs to say, into two sentences. I admire people who can do that!

At any rate, I think this is great advice for me, and a lot of us who might read this. We all can benefit from taking time to learn from each other, and stepping back from emotional knee-jerk responses to an overwhelming world.


anarresinfoshop wrote

Just awful, what the police are doing to people in the name of "law and order" and "rule of law". Murdering people, for demonstrating against a totally illegitimate government of the rich minority...what else is new?

In this conflict, hopefully everyday people can come into contact with each other and form coalitions and friendships which will become more resilient than before, and in turn create a more powerful force than the state to serve their mutual needs and express power horizontally.

In Peru, anarchists already do quite a lot, according to my friends from there. That gives me hope, although you don't hear about that in The Guardian's articles.


anarresinfoshop wrote (edited )

So liberals are equivalent to fascists on the inside

No, liberals are not equivalent to fascists. This is a misconception common among leftists, which anarchists tend inherit along with the rest of the leftist baggage they pick up.

Liberalism creates an environment in which fascism can grow-- but, as you can see from all the bickering over the J6 and J8 fascist coup-attempts/election-protests, liberals and fascists are definitely not "the same". In fact, they are pretty clearly different groups, which are in increasingly visible conflict right now.

That said, anarchists critique liberal ideology and fascist politics, both of them, for a lot of the same reasons. But that doesn't mean that they are the same, or that the approaches to them should be the same in all contexts. That is actually bad strategy in a lot of cases, because it will result in missed opportunities.

Everything that follows from this ITT, devolves from this basic misapprehension, and adds to it some personal hangups around need for social approval, social anxiety, a fixation around violence, and resentment of others due to those issues. I think it would be helpful to seek out emotional therapeutics (meditation, talk therapy, whatever works for you) to address some of that, and then just try to relax in the future when you seek out doing these mutual aid projects, or other anarchist things.

Just be yourself. Nobody who you should care about, is going to rage at you because you made a mistake or didn't understand something. Yes, some people are jerks, and sometimes they have (imo undeserved) clout in anarchist spaces (or the rest of the world.....)...but fuck that; there's plenty of reasonable people who would be happy to meet you and work with you and play with you, if you get out there and do your thing. Plus, if you're relaxed, you'll be in the best possible mindset to be absorbing and making use of any positive/constructive critiques that come your way, which will allow you to be the best version of yourself that you can be as you continue your life journey in this bizzare, fascinating world we live in.

I hope you have a good rest of your day!

edit: changed a typo


anarresinfoshop wrote

Reply to comment by roanoke9 in Friday Free Talk by monday

"cool crowd"...yeah, that is definitely the vibe I get from reading descriptions of the interactions between Leon and the more famous anarchists of their time in America. It's kind of sad, but at the same time, it's entirely predictable because these people were all human. they were all real people, not heroes or demigods. While it's fine to admire a writers' writing, an activists' actions, or whatever have you...why deify? The impulse is disgusting, frankly, when you really look at it and see it for what it is...just another strange and twisted habit. It invokes for me the idea of an addict, thinking back about the twists and turns and nature of their addictive behaviors, their old 'habit', after the time and repose offered by rehabilitation and abstinence thereof. One can reflect on it as, just, well, silliness that got entirely out of hand, and became pretty hurtful to everyone involved.

Of course, I can't say anything about social dynamics from so long ago, read third and fourth hand. but regardless, it is striking how much those descriptions forcibly reminded me of interactions I've had in my life among friends. And let me tell you, I've always been the Leon, not the Alexander.


anarresinfoshop wrote

I wasn't replying to you, actually, I was talking to the person you also replied to. They were seeming to take the article as if it was saying the title as its thesis and defending that idea, rather than an antithesis to critique. Which, is foolish, because it isn't good to make low effort comments about things you didn't read. But you kind of just jumped in here lol

Anyway, I have to say that as a worker, your comment strikes me as dismissive and hostile, which is shitty, and I feel unwarranted. If it's "workerist" to advocate for workers' self-organization...and, this is even more frustrating an implication in my opinion, if it's workerist to critique the bourgeois political left unity discourse represented in the question posed in the title, by advocating for that workers' self-organization, among and alongside other praxes...well, then I'm workerist I guess. An anti-work workerist, too, so riddle that? lol...

I think strongly, that workers need to be able to talk about work and workers' issues, without self identified anarchists using some ideological jargon to talk down to workers, saying, "your discourse, actions, and sociality are unimportant, and in fact, I'm only going to give it the credit of a low effort 'meh.'"

I mean, it would similarly rub me the wrong way, for example...let's say, to have an article about abortion rights in the context of women's feminist organizing, which happens to focus on cis women and their efforts, to be given a "meh, cis feminism" response. It's not only that it's kind of an unhelpful critique, which offers nothing in particular to improve what is being critiqued, but it's also the fact that, as a transgender woman, I feel it's straight out unhelpful to drive a discursive wedge between feminist organizing and trans organizing in that way, and does a disservice to both efforts, and as a consequence, has negative effects you could say, on both aspects of my existence/reality/identity. It's not that I don't see why someone might have that reply; I do, and that's kind of why it's so frustrating, because it doesn't offer anything to resolve the dialectic which is opened up by the initial article/post. Instead, it deepens that dialectic, and leaves it unresolved. In turn, this leaves people with a deepened sense of divisive side-choosing, rather than seeing things intersectionally...and my opinion is, well, what purpose does that serve? So, regardless of opinion...why say that, if the consequence of the discourse is so undesirable to the outcome that is wanted by those taking part in that discourse?

Since the vast majority of people are workers (whether paid or not), an anarchist/anti-work discourse which is alienating and silencing to such a vast grouping of people, can only do itself and its goals a tremendous disservice.

Perhaps you do not have any interest in workers' issues as discussed in the article... but is it really necessary to voice that distaste while offering nothing to improve it with? And in fact, after admitting to not even reading the article...?

Because, in that case, it seems to me that the comment you made is also "meh". So why make it? At the risk of speaking out of turn myself... sometimes, it is just better to listen, and wait to have something to say, or disengage from the conversation if you don't have the patience for that...rather than speak over others.


anarresinfoshop wrote

We welcome any of you who are interested to join us in our little sanctuaries, events, etc

Also, if you have any books, CDs, or other media to share, you can send it to us and we will try to get it out to people to read and watch and listen to, etc. If it is a text, we can print copies if you send us the file digitally


anarresinfoshop wrote

Yes, it does.

While today, communists in the United States (my country) are essentially relegated to being an even tinier, more marginal and less important version of the green party electoralists, in actual history the anarchist communists have always been enmeshed in coalitions and contextual circumstances with other anarchists, and non-anarchists.

While today, anarcho-communists mostly seem to spend time in isolated organizations or on forums, defending intellectual purity, in the past they spent much more time engaging intellectually and ontologically with their peers.

In the future, we will see these ideas develop past their commodification, and become renewed by new contexts of pursuing liberation. It will be vital for communists to embrace the valuable, devastating critiques offered by anticiv/nilhyilst/individualist anarchists.

In my area, egoist communists are gaining a lot of attention, and have basically nothing in common with the goals, tactics or interests of either tankies or traditional ancoms/syndicalists like the IWW etc. So, yes, your point is well heard and valid.


anarresinfoshop wrote

Reply to comment by monday in Friday Free Talk by monday

It's weird that anarchists create heroes of their famous anarcha-celebrity 19th century progenitors.

I feel it comes from the defensive insecurity felt in trying to advocate for anarchy-- such a novel set of ideas, compared to hierarchical life and hegemonic dominating socialization. But it's kind of childish, for lack of a better way I can think to explain this.

You can be aware of historical figures, and acknowledge that some of them played an outsize role in an earlier stage of historical development...and also not really care for hero-worship or deifying them for all time...

Let me put it another way. Remember that Leon tried to be friends with Emma and Berkman? and they both shrugged him off like he was some incorrigible weirdo they wanted nothing to do with. was unpopular, the others were very popular in anarchist spaces and to this of them was a successful insurrectionary assassin, the others...well, weren'


anarresinfoshop wrote

It's funny, here we used to have an infoshop, and then we got pushed out for not affording, we have less than you do-- no space, have difficulty "making things happen" in the same way as before, but we are still calling ourselves an infoshop lol...

We will certainly reopen this year, I can feel it, we have concrete plans for how to do it, but regardless it's funny that we are still calling ourselves an infoshop even though we don't have a space, yet your crew are not calling yourself an infoshop even though you do have a space...!

Still, doesn't really matter what you call it, it matters what you do! Maybe the label isn't so important. But perhaps you will grow into it over time. :^)

Soon, in the next 1-2 years, I will be travelling with another collective member, in Europe and South America. Perhaps we can visit your space on our path? "infoshop" or not. If you will have us, that is. We are hoping to bring some money and labor/time/effort towards cool projects on our journey.


anarresinfoshop wrote

I don't deny either the insurectionary element of this.

So, you're saying that the crowds of people demanding a military coup to install a far-right president, have an insurrectionary element?

I'm sorry, as an anarchist in the United States I find this really hard to believe, even from so far away. I don't use "insurrectionary" to describe things or people which support hegemonic oppressive forces, because that doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain what you mean by this?

Fascism, while it may be "insurrectionary" in aesthetics, is in reality a recapitulation to authoritarian systems. It is an appropriation, from revolutionary movements for social change, of the aesthetics of those historical revolutionary movements. It then appropriates those aesthetics, in service of the opposite: the reinforcement of the existing system, the existing privileges, the existing hierarchies. This is my understanding of this type of "insurrectionary element", basically regardless of where it crops up: the United States, Brazil, China, etc. Perhaps my understanding is not attuned to the specific circumstances in Brazil?

I would say this is the reality since 1500 when the Portuguese came.

Well, in a sense, maybe yeah. But obviously there was no modern police force in Brazil (or anywhere) until the 19th and 20th centuries, so this seems to me, that it is an ahistorical way to describe what has been happening. Additionally, it's also ahistorical to elide 500 years of historical oppression into a homogenous description like that-- of course there have been ebbs and flows in the precise nature of that historical oppression, it's been five centuries, right?

The first Worker's Party terms was a centrist social democracy that lifted many part of the population from poverty and famine, but the populist stance of the govt left a new consumerist middle class with no "class consciousness" or any political ideology besides the conservatism that is typical is LatinAmerica.

Yes, we are entirely in agreement. In fact, it is odd to me that you are saying this in this way, because that is what I am referring to in my original comment/post, yet the way you are communicating it sounds like you are trying to correct me.

The so called left and the communists are trying to make an active counter point to the new govt now that the Bolsonaro was defeated in the elections. I suspect that the culture war here will be exacerbated in the next years. The anarchists here (especifismo, and social anarchism) in my perception are an accessory to the leftist players, they will sure be critical of this social democracy and it's alliance with neoliberal market.

Indeed, the next stage now that fascism is on the retreat, is to confront the inherent neoliberalism of the social-democratic coalitions. This seems to me, to be true in both Brazil under Lula's PD governance, and the USA under Biden's DP governance.

The crucial thing for anarchists, is to avoid playing second fiddle to the electorally subsumed "left". It is critical to define an anarchy that is demonstrably and definitively distinct from "leftism", because leftism has been absorbed into cults of personality around presidential elections and party politics, and as a result, at this point "leftism" has been basically neutralized of any class character or revolutionary/insurrectionary potential that it could have had.

It's better for anarchists to leave that toxic idea of "leftism" behind, now more than ever.


anarresinfoshop wrote

"The political left usually claims that solutions to the crisis are within the left. By contrast, Rasmus Hästbacka points to class unions, independent of the left. Hästbacka is a member of the Swedish syndicalist union SAC. The article draws from his forthcoming book....'We need a united class, not a united left, to push the class struggle forward'"

The whole article is critiquing the question posed in the title. Did you read the article, or just the title?


anarresinfoshop wrote

I think it would be interesting to have a media platform, that is tied to a physical location, which can put out and publish/republish things like that. My biggest critique of websites that do this kind of thing, is that they feel amorphous and digital, and as a result, not grounded in any particular physical thing or organization or space. Perhaps in the future, media outlets for anarchy can be physical locals like infoshops. I feel it is an overlapping project, and would give a physicality which is often so lacking these days since da pandemic


anarresinfoshop wrote

:( I'm sorry

friendships can also offer opportunities for touch; certain relationship agreements/structures can also offer that as well. Have you discussed these issues you're experiencing with your partner? Have you explored possible solutions with them, and/or on your own?

Romantic relationships can be a great thing to have in your life, but I feel that people in romantic relationships can sometimes forget to cultivate friendships, which in my opinion are also a very important part of a happy and fulfilling life

In fact, I would even venture so far as to say that having a diverse set of friendships is even more important, because it enriches all the other connections and sense of community/sociality that you have, including your romantic relationship(s)

Of course, there are always obstacles in the way, in real life. For example, you could be in antarctica-- figuratively, or literally, like I was last year.