A question and possible suggestion concerning the Black Bloc.

4n0nem0us3 · 3 days

Clandestine actions have their place, but are 1) less visible and, as such, 2) less likely to be as inspiring or contagious as open defiance. If the only goal is property destroyed or economic damage inflicted on a target, a hurricane is way more effective than a black bloc and no more or less likely to end capitalism. The goal must be the creation and growth of cultures of resistance. We are winning when more and more people are inspired to withdraw their participation and actively revolt.

And whenever people talk about militant actions alienating "ordinary" people, they mean the same "ordinary" people that politicians talk about: white, middle-class people invested in maintaining capitalism. If we limit our tactics to only those that white middle-class liberals will find acceptable, we've already lost.

Voltairine1 · 4 days

You mean to tell me a capitalist has fucked up politics? Shocking!

unrealriot · 5 days

Address the behavior first. If someone violates security culture, take them aside and gently remind them. If they continue, ask them to leave.

wicked_observer · 5 days

Training montage!

KaylaJo96 · 5 days

I have no problem with people who mutually decide that they only want to be with each other. My problem is the culture where monogamy is forced on people or seen as the only valid relationship style. Sorry if critiques of enforced monogamy sometimes end up unfairly including sane, honest monogamous people.

azripah · 5 days

It's partially American fear-conditioning to protect against subversive ideas, but it's mostly about ideology. Nobody likes it when you preach at them or try to convert them, regardless of what you're talking about. When the conversation is about "anarchism" it becomes a debate about the merits or shortcomings of anarchism as an abstract concept. It ceases to be about actual humans and their desires. The discussion almost inevitably deteriorates into an argument about hypothetical examples and counter-examples about why it would or wouldn't "work."

Instead, I've found that much more pleasant and effective communication comes from a genuine dialog - a mutual sharing of feelings and ideas - about the things we both care about. Nobody likes being told what to do. Whether or not you call that instinctive, human rebellion against authority anarchism or not is irrelevant.

gotoAndSmoke · 5 days

If your strategy depends on appealing to the humanity of those in power and winning them over with your ability to suffer nobly, then you have already lost.

gotoAndSmoke · 5 days

You misunderstand me. I believe actively resisting oppression is more effective than holding signs, or chanting, or speaking truth to power, or whatever nonsense liberals call activism. For some people, fighting back isn't a question of moral purity, it's a matter of survival. It is a privilege to not experience state violence as part of your daily reality.

If your idea of winning is to die at the hands of your oppressors in an inspiring manner, then I don't really know what to tell you. I intend to defeat my enemies.

And don't use "pussy" as a way to call someone a coward.

gotoAndSmoke · 6 days

Cops are only pawns so resisting their brutality isn't important.

Some bullshit about blaming the victim for justifying their own oppression.

We can't win anyway, so why bother fighting?

I almost have a liberal pacifist bingo! Let me know when the moral high ground becomes bulletproof. Until then I think I'll choose resistance over resignation in the face of brutality, thank you.

gotoAndSmoke · 6 days

Every time a liberal holds up Gandhi as the only model of effective resistence, somewhere a little fairy falls down dead.

I hope the ghost of Bhagat Singh haunts the shit out of you.

amador23 · 6 days

The militias organized by the trade unions were helpful because they got people to start seriously thinking about and training for the possibility of either a fascist coup or a worker's revolt, but even they weren't the deciding factor. What initially stopped the fascists and turned a potential military coup into a prolonged civil war was the culture of militancy and resistence. It was ordinary people who were the first ones on the barricades, not union leadership.

unitedstates · 6 days

More of this please! The idea that protests need to be 100% peaceful (i.e. nonthreatening) to prevent the media/politicians from smearing them is ludicrous. They will condemn even the tamest expression of dissent with all their power.

Asking politely will not end oppression. Nor will watering down our message and tactics to attract reactionaries. The only way to create meaningful change is to do it ourselves.

Pin_Prick · 16 days

Get over it.

heyfergy · 16 days

Very little fun or free happens downtown. Try the West Bank or uptown, they're both fairly easy to get to from downtown and will probably have better options.

closetanarchist · 16 days

What are you contributing to the world through nuclear research?

Arcitens · 16 days

This is great. Anarchists would do well to spend more time disrupting toothless reformism within movements and less time worrying about upsetting the self-appointed managers.

Sachyriel · 17 days

No Gods, No Masters.

I believe that bowing before anything - a flag, a king, a boss, or a bearded man in the sky - is contrary to the ideals of anarchism and a blight on human freedom.

However, private acceptance of a silly idea is your own business. I'm sure I believe many things which time and experience will prove to be quite silly. Knock yourself out.

briesa37 · 17 days

Anarchists don't like anti-state capitalists because you support economic coercion. Private property inevitably leads to wealth accumulation and exponentially growing inequality. In a small community, someone with enough accumulated wealth and property could effectively become a new state, or worse. If they own the property you live on, control your access to water, employ you and control your livelihood, then they are capable of excersizing incredible coercive authority over you, even without violating your NAP.

There's no getting around it. Anarchists are anti-coercion, not just anti-state. We are against the state and capitalism because they are coercive relationships. We may have some things in common and could theoretically coexist peacefully in a liberated society, but we are not allies. If anarchists made common cause with everyone who shared one or two of our beliefs, we'd find ourselves working with authoritarian communists, republicans, capitalists, and all sorts of scum.

calantorntain · 24 days

Why couldn't the anarchist get her Phd? Because she had no masters!

Why can't anarchists draw a straight line? No Rulers!

How many internet anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb? Read the FAQ!

How many Occupiers does it take to change a lightbulb? We better not. The cops told us not to. This is a peaceful protest!

How many an-caps does it take to change a lightbulb? None, the market will take care of that.

How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb? Obama will do it for us! He's just been biding his time till the second term.

How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb? None, the bulb's internal contradictions will inevitably lead to revolution.

How many American anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they just watch Youtube videos of Greeks doing it.

shoseki · 24 days

We are not foolish enough to believe that power can be abolished. We just see a difference between power over (domination) and power with (cooperation).

What currently stops you from random destruction and murder? Is it fear of the police or connection to your neighborhood/neighbors? People who have their basic needs met (food, water, shelter) and feel like they are a valued part of a community do not typically engage in anti-social behavior. Look at how we behave after a natural disaster. There is some scrambling to secure basic needs, but for the most part a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid prevails.

oaklin · 25 days

But the choice isn't between me purchasing the album or pirating it. The choice is between me listening to the album (and telling other people about it if it's good) or not.

Technology has made the old ways of thinking about ownership obsolete. If the music is good, people will support a band regardless of how they acquired their music. The days of record companies tricking people into buying an entire album of garbage on the strength of one decent single are over. I don't think record companies should even exist anymore, honestly, so I shed no tears about hurting their profits.

oaklin · 26 days

I understand we live in a shitty system that forces people to turn things into commodities in order to eat and pay rent, but I honestly believe that music and art should be free.

I'm an actor. I would gladly let people see my work for free if they wanted to. If they can pay me something for a live performance, that's great, but recordings and such should always be free.

Also, consider these points:

1) Open source software. People contribute to it because they're passionate about the work, not because they're expecting payment.

2) Theft implies irretrievably taking something. If you steal my DVD then I can no longer watch that movie. That's theft. If you copy a DVD, then I can still watch it. I don't consider that theft. Our laws are outdated and ill-suited for a digital age.

3) At one point I owned every Radiohead album. The only one I purchased was In Rainbows, because they let people decide their own price. If piracy were not an option, I wouldn't purchase more albums - I just wouldn't listen to Radiohead.

4) All of my favorite albums were given to me for free by local bands just happy to have an audience. I will support them in any way I can: by going to shows, buying t-shirts, telling friends about them, etc. but the music itself should always be free.

theloniousnole · 26 days

r/anarchism has a great FAQ

briesa37

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login