user preferences

Alpha below zero - Nemesis and "new anarchy"

category international | anarchist movement | opinion / analysis author Thursday November 19, 2015 18:38author by Argyris Argyriadis Report this post to the editors

This pamphlet by the “enigmatic” title “Alpha below zero - Nemesis and new anarchy”, appeared online almost a year ago in Greek language by Anarpsy project. Anarpsy is a project about speech, theory and analysis in the context of social psychology, psychoanalysis, psychodynamic approach and psychiatry through Antiauthoritarian - Anarchist perspective, in order to analyse the reality of social and political phenomena. “Alpha below zero” is the second Anarpsy’s pamphlet. (The first was the “ELthnikismos (ΗELlenicNATIONALISM), - A contribution to the understanding of Greek nationalism”). “Alpha below zero” reflects a shift towards nihilism that exists into so-called neo-anarchists.
12232974_10207845402518247_1143243159_n.jpg

From the translator

This pamphlet by the “enigmatic” title “Alpha below zero - Nemesis and new anarchy”, appeared online almost a year ago in Greek language by Anarpsy project. Anarpsy is a project about speech, theory and analysis in the context of social psychology, psychoanalysis, psychodynamic approach and psychiatry through Antiauthoritarian - Anarchist perspective, in order to analyse the reality of social and political phenomena.

“Alpha below zero” is the second Anarpsy’s pamphlet. (The first was the “ELthnikismos (ΗELlenicNATIONALISM), - A contribution to the understanding of Greek nationalism”). “Alpha below zero” reflects a shift towards nihilism that exists into so-called neo-anarchists. Nemesis refers to the equivalent FAI/IRF project about their sabotage to products of Coca Cola and Nestle and that one can find here:
http://interarma.info/2013/12/25/sabotage_coca_cola_nestle/

Inside a significant part of the Greek anarchist - antiauthoritarian movement has been sprung in recent years an important, new consciousness of a continuous and substantial involvement which largely has to do with the emergence of more class views and also a trend towards the movement of solidarity economy and cooperative ventures. It is a process that continues, constituting a new form unfolding a new social anarchism that only will, in my opinion, have a good result for our movement. A new tradition in which an important part of our movement has a decisive role.

But this is the one aspect of the whole matter. The other side is, in my opinion, completely the opposite, of different diametrically and, most often, a deadly hostile to the first. There is a fair amount of so-called anarchists or anti-authoritarians, rejecting decisively to deal with labour and general social issues, oppose vehemently the participation of anarchists in self-organised, direct democracy and organisational projects, like the ones that have sprung up, as we said before, across the Greek territory, trying to grapple with the immediate, daily, pressing problems, through neighborhood assemblies, autonomous spaces, collaborative and direct democracy, in as much as wide forms.

A significant part of Greek movement continues to deal with projects and actions, which not only ignore deliberately the entirely historically proven class nature of the anarchist movement, but also spend themselves in entirely antisocial beliefs and actions, something that raises questions and reasonable doubt as to whether this kind of collectivities and beliefs should be counted as part of our broader movement.

Besides, many times, participants and supporters of these ventures have attacked directly the movement of social anarchism, class struggle anarchism and their organisations, even with rhetorics that can not be written.

The author of this pamphlet explores this "phenomenon”, of "new anarchy" as its supporters call it and, of course, refers to this trend that espouses important pieces of the movement inclining towards anti-social stances, individualism, nihilism, a wooden attitude against civilisation and so-called primitivism. Author's intention is not to put a sterile and meaningless criticism of these trends above all, but to put the whole matter in every aspect towards the beginning of a dialogue with the aim of defending and strengthening social anarchism.

Anarpsy publications are available online, are circulated through internet and are available without any restriction for every use by our movement.

Greek speaking readers can download both Anarpsy pamphlets from here:
http://www.anarxeio.gr/publishers/view/anarpsy

Argyris Argyriadis, MD- PhD. is a Psychopathologist, Clinical Professor. Since mid 1980s he participates in the Greek and international anarchist movement and he is a member of the historical Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

Dimitris Troaditis
(Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group, Anarkismo.net)
November 2015

ALPHA below zero.
Nemesis and "new anarchy"

In this electronic brochure will be an attempt to analyze the "new anarchy" in the context of social psychology and psychodynamic approach. Our aim is to contribute to 'internal' happenings at the level of ideas and how they are formulated into the modern environment. The analysis is focusing on the ideas (generally), using events only as an example (partially) and is not focusing on people (specially) in a personal level. Human as an active subject takes place in the events, making his reality, according to the information receives. But the goals and the means to achieve them are those differentiate and form the action. The writing was not an easy task and the writer supports the Historical Mass Anarchism, which broadly described as Social Anarchism. By this I want to emphasize that in reality there are no phenomena in the analysis of social and political neutrality that stem from an alleged "scientific" or "academic" objectivity. The effort was towards opening and not exhausting the whole issue, presenting the interpretation as a version as well as a starting point for thinking.

Argyris Argyriadis
Athens, January 2014
anarpsy@espiv.net

Introduction

In recent years it has been developed within the anarchist-antiauthoritarian "space" (allow me this expression) a shift towards antisocial activity, individualism, nihilism, against civilization and a peculiar primitivism, which is not simply the evolution of lifestyle anarchism as it had been described by Murray Bookchin before, but something much more.
By more "aggressive" and in essence more "activist" action of what they as described as terrorism, the supporters of this "trend" (allow me to use this word as an interpretative tool) organized into informal federations and use technology and electronic media often quite hostile to implement comprehensive plans of action with names like Palm or Nemesis, not only in a local but also in an international level. In determining these actions they use several new or different verbal formulations to demonstrate that here it happens something new (eg. new nihilistic resistance, anarcho-nihilist terrorism etc.) not only by active carriers of this trend -which from now on we will call "new anarchy"- but also from sympathizers of this trend during debate within the media counter-information. Here the pronunciation of the support of "new anarchy" is in sharp conflict with the anarchists of various tendencies which is making up the existing anarchy and especially those who do not agree and do not welcome this new condition. Passion and compliance is very strong on both sides. One rejects the other for their own reasons, but the main argument is the aversion against society as well as the means above purposes as two key features of what we define as "new anarchy."

Certainly, in the modern environment, the new dimensions which takes what we could call as metropolitan violence, are not exhausted into a single analysis, but have been characterized by a relentless extreme passion. This is an illegible language that is strange enough the political rationality of social anarchism. It becomes clear that the precursors of this language do not belong to the thought or the traditions of social solidarity and radical equality. A contributor to this is a reliance on Stirner, the preference in Nietzsche, in Novatore and others who inspire a new-anarcho-individualistic nihilism. But what are the root causes of this very controversial revolutionary heritage in the present circumstances? Surely the simple condemnation is the easiest rhetoric. Even the most wild, angry expression wants to say something, it sends a message through despair, elitism or anti-social isolationism, draws attention to indicate presence, to stop being invisible. In a world where the lack of meaning is predominant, even the smallest action against an existing is an act of resistance. How liberatingly innovative is the center of the debate?

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur*
"* Whatever is said in Latin seems profound" to translate the header. The same can be argued for the incomprehensible. In most cases, the new anarchistic reason is difficult and incomprehensible to the outside observer. "Return critically on the table ideological preconceptions on respect for human life (even enemies), who possessed some nuclei of ALF internationally, in order to remove them.”
I wonder what someone can understand by such a statement. Not only for its content, but for the closeness of those who write it. Are they enemies or friends? Can allying with them and how to avoid any danger? The key challenge is to understand what is psycho-political balance of the authors in relation to what they aim to abolish. What comes out clearly is war against everyone, and there are no exceptions or sympathies in the conduct of it. Nemesis: The punishment imposed by a higher power to whoever violates the moral laws, his nemesis.

Surely the continuous onslaught by capitalism and the recoil mass social movements led to disastrous choices. The destabilization of society, made life empty and meaningless, constantly subjecting people to humiliation by the very survival of a competitive process. This applies whether you are a sociable, individualist or even an antisocial supporter of the "new anarchy" as if you are not any of them, if you live in the given social historical context.

The current international economic system although despite situated in a broader structural crisis, is more able to survive and be imposed rather to be collapsed if not break the existing social relations. So, how they could outlined the way of action against this form of society?

Far from romantic ideas and supplications, the new anarchist guerrilla identifies itself and its actions as the art of the possible. Based on this, but not only, it becomes the meeting point of anarcho-individualists with those against civilization,the eco-anarchists, etc.
Note: Throughout this work the "new anarchy" will be used with quotes aiming to emphasize that this is a particular utterance of speech in how they define themselves and construct their self-image.

Eliminating “A"

Certainly in the minds of supporters of the "new anarchy" anarchy is still class, but not in the sense Proudhon and other theorists of the classic "old anarchism" set it up but as a "natural" order, chaos and entropy.
Let's try to see and, above all, to understand the peculiar psychology of the "new anarchy." I believe that the analysis on the psychology of neo-nihilist phenomenon will help us to understand the problems of contemporary metropolitan status in general, because, even despite claiming in somebody, in essence it is cut off from society and the possibility of dynamically performative power to create and construct meaning and ideology both citizens and rivals. The recourse against heteronomy is not a certainty for the individual that leads to self-government.

During the 20th century, anarchism practical part of the broader socialist movement competing with a bigger impact in parts of social anarchism as anarcho-syndicalists and anarchocommunists.
Today the anarchist scene is so diverse and fragmented and the thing who can be called an anarchist is disputed by all sides depending on every individual case, as appropriate to the action and the content of each side. One thing is certain, that the "new anarchy" seeks to detach from the old diverse mosaic of existing anarchist 'space' not considering them effective, as well as from those which remain within the ideological spectrum of social anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism as pillars of Historical Greater Anarchism, considering them dead, outdated even as enemies. So much they specify to it that they do not want solidarity from those who do not agree with their views. This is the finding of the "new anarchy" as a negative control group compared with the existing anarchist "scene".
In this work, when we talk about the "new anarchy" we will refer mainly to the nihilistic, individualistic, against civilization, anti-technology, primitivism, anti-social, eco-anarchist tendency (I use that term by the sociological content of the word). Without forgetting the insurrectional anarchism and the new urban guerrilla and the a-formalistic-informal structure as a way of setting up the collectives of “new anarchy”.

"Even so, the area of "new anarchy" remains quite vague, so I will try to point out and analyze an approximate manner as regards methodology. Moreover we will avoid using the word "comrades" for obvious reasons not to bring embarrassment nor be construed as trying to integrate them into something that they consider do not belong.

Nietzsche, Nietzsche are you here?

From the content analysis, external communication (Note: here mainly the inter-individual and inter-group behavior of the individuals and groups as well as the ideological level) through their announcements in the “movement' means" as well as the dialogue of those support the "new anarchy 'we can distinguish two main characteristics: Superior-inferiority and de-socialization.
Both characteristics lying within the psychological structure of the subjects that make up this trend and we could consider as the central assembly point on the ideological level beyond the obvious anarchist determining the political spectrum.
By Superior-inferiority (attention: We do not mean that there is some psychopathology, therefor we do not use the word syndrome), we do not mean the same sentiment in general and the double bonds which it may involve, for example, evident superiority behaviors or latent inferiority across the spectrum of congenital characteristics can construct group and individual imaginary "new anarchy." Eg. Elitism or non-self-esteem, sense of power and grandeur, depressive or maniac tendencies, aversion to loss, guilt-complicity, apathy - award and hate for himself.

The continuous devaluation by "new anarchy 'of society in its ability to release and interpretative demerits of collegiality versus a super-human can be determined as elitism. This trend is quite evident towards anyone, anarchist or not, who embraces the collective struggle in the traditional sense. Here is shown by the supporters of "new anarchy" an extremely attacking phraseology with axiological characterizations against what "new anarchy" defines "politically correct discourse" and refers many times not only in the final subject which exists eg. exploitation by power (eg. worker) and the political group who sympathizes (eg. anarcho-syndicalists - those in solidarity).
This is done in an effort to separate, on one side, of the established collective or mass struggle and, on the other side, to prove ineffective. The rhetoric, in my estimation, is due to the effort of insulation of emotion in order to emerge the superiority of individualistic subject. Since there is a given aversion to identification with the concept of solidarity that have participants competing movements with the problems of groups that appear as oppressed, defeated, repellent or simply inferior.

The supporters of "new anarchy" tend to reach up to hate or at least envy anything to seem weak, good or moral. The hate ideology and especially classical anarchism. In addition, they hate generally enlightenment and culture as entities of evil and especially industrial capitalism. The reasons invoked to justify this aversion is often so warlike that "hate" seems closer to fascism than to anarchism, invoke the power or the will of the person who would fit well in a vulgar unbridled capitalism rather than a free society.

Words and concepts such as mutual aid, solidarity, conformation, ideology and ethics have no place in the vocabulary and values of "new anarchy." There is a great hate against social policy for the benefit of a superficial egotism excessive individualism. In such point that necessity to meet the needs of all people in society is questioning. I consider that this stems more from the inner feeling that pervades most individualistic that can and should solve their own problems, as a result of mistrust or distrust of others to meet their needs. The individualist feels competitive in the sense of solidarity because deep down defeated selfish, Stirner argument one hand and undermined the Nietzschean super-human.

In "new anarchy”, we should admit that systematically reject science, logic an Enlightenment ethic, and insist on relativization of selfishness and immorality as an answer to evil and greedy capitalist culture that destroys human and nature. There can be no doubt that the anarchist side does not deny or dispute the fact that the foundations of scientific knowledge and its application have an ideological content and that the majority used for the benefit of the market and domination. This objective reality is for everyone and the challenging of social reality made by social movements and individual activists critically analyze and radical ideological bases of knowledge. You do not have to be against the knowledge to do this.

I think that this attack against these values is to cover the internal psychological needs of the supporters of "new anarchy." It is about a channeling of a total hostility aimed at meeting the need for power. Besides, this need they have never hidden before. That's why many times when confrontation is often the phenomena of invocation selfishness, promoting ego self and the ruthless competition Super-human versus the lower dynamics of social solidarity and cooperation. This psyche creates people and behaviors intolerant to those who believe that they lack the sense of power and those who do not believe they have the ability to be strong about it and fall into collectives, is therefore impossible to make people collective and social in their view. This representation creates resentment through the feeling of superiority to ensure the structure of the assembly with the strong and unique selfish self and thus ensure the notorious individualistic autonomy.

The anarcho-individualist can feel rather weak in a large organization or within the mass movement simply because other than that the internal structure can be no other equal in which coincides socially. The collective struggle is, by this reasoning, a masochistic tendency of those weak.

Rather they prefer a different single match outside society (the traditional term of the collective) who is strong, "effective", and not possessed by pity or symbolism, as moral principles are lacking. Since morality is unthinkable to match ranks of "new anarchy", this contributes, as discussed later in their de-socialization.

Since it seems that the choice of means and methods is often not reasonably determined to avail unlike wreaking - because considers them all (except themselves) partners and complicit with the regime so it claims to be trying to help them.

Reminds me of the cynicism by which the state of emergency considers that it is obliged to provide health services to all citizens living in the country. For example, no one denies as a content and action against a multinational soft drink company, however what would be the most desirable outcome as a result of the action? Do not want to drink this drink because they consider harmful or not to drink for fear of poison them? Everyone give their own hostile, cynical, doctrinal or political answers depending on how it is stated that the end justifies the means. In this respect the differences between "new anarchy" and Social Anarchism is distinctly visible.
"New anarchy", according to our estimation, the ever-swelling social problems finds fantastic, unique -like its ego- of ways to cause disruption but not solve them. Nietzsche continues screaming adamantly listen...

In social psychology and in pedagogic science the term socialization generally is defined as a process and the result of the inclusion and integration of individuals into a community. By this way the individual acquires the position in its whole and becomes the same body of heritage establishing the social identity and ensure its continuity.

Regardless if you agree or disagree with the previous definition of socialization, you do not need to take a stance because "new anarchy" already took a stance for you supporting a moral nihilism, a position that denies any moral obligation towards society and does not accept any moral value. Unlike Social Anarchists and classics such as Kropotkin, who defend a more moral relativism which considers the behavior similar social and cultural context in which it appears depending on the season, which is why morality as this code is basis for judging whether an action is appropriate.

It is assumed that the moral code nowadays is so fractured that tends to moralizing, hypocrisy and eventually immorality. What authorities require does not mean you have the anarchists must accept and perpetuate it. Regardless if the inconsistency characterizes every moment, that almost everyone come to a point that hate someone or something sometime constitutes no excuse nor hate nor falling in the opposite case in a insurmountable pacifism love to socialize. Surely the imposition of morality functionally is a blatant oppression of religious type. It leads to feelings of guilt and self-deception in order to explain and rationalize the mismatch of incentives that certainly does not fit the anarchists and in each autonomous personality.

The same applies to those who choose the easy way of releasing and choose immorality and non-binding on anyone other than themselves. I will use the following term “de-socialization” to describe this non-binding which can be just as hypocritical pretense and morality which the counter. In psychoanalysis several theories based on Freud and others in the process of non-socialization but I think the more appropriate analysis for this discussion focusing on aggressiveness and not the sexual.

As a result of this aggressive behavior, which is a product of de-socialization can lead to isolation from low self-esteem in elitism, the feeling of weakness to feelings of grandeur, transfer of guilt as complicity of someone else. If society creates the person ashamed to frustrate expectations, then the opposition's refusal to society is a clear rejection mechanism of social expectations. If someone is against society, then there is no hope for the daily reconciliation and justify the emergence of selfish self as the only and self-majestity.
It would be wrong to claim even the greatest champion of morality that the majority of people do not often deflected in individualistic, utilitarian practices, which could draw on the moral nihilism: Telling lies, making low scale infringement, white lies and so on this does not mean that rotates in the opposite direction against the system. Because socialization is not just a matter of morality or immorality. We necessarily often have to do things that society has defined for us in the majority because of heteronomy to become psychological prisoners to things that do not suit us. Therefore there is individual and social struggle. The withdrawal to the individual more consumer awareness (even if people deny it) reminds too something else. Selfishness draws more on the characteristics of a narcissistic personality, despite the sovereign of a Human. Both excessive socialization (allegiance to collectivity, fascism) and the de-socialization (extreme individualism) can also cause horror and atrocities on the ability of enforcement among men. There is no guarantee to the contrary.

The de-socialised supporter of "new anarchy" should in his quest for up to escape from all the psychological shackles of social and reclaim his personal autonomy through the uprising. He prefers the concept of rebellion as a process, because it is not strong enough, even if he is invoke for it, in order to revolt is a procedure that is part of social transformation on the one hand, nor to the other use the same word used by social opponents and having been deprived up and "ludicrous hippism" of individual emancipation in the decade of ’60-’70. Modern supporters of "new anarchy live in today and do not want old dead shapes.

Instead, he is getting, not necessarily as a single-issue, a value of existing moral society, e.g. protection of nature, and blames society that collaborating in its perpetuation. At another level he will denounce as incorrect fundamental human rights to which anarchists involved, see e.g. solidarity, because they do not lead to total liberation. If reversed, "new anarchy" in the basic symbiotic obligation that builds social movements that is an obligation of human and society to care for others, he must attack against these values, otherwise the individualistic argument have no reason to exist. So anti-institutions of solidarity, self-education, and social centers are part of the conventional world to be destroyed, because they only offer charity, etc.
The terroristic violence and activism of the disaster are part of the struggle for "total liberation". When analyzing "new anarchy", thereby they are challenging the constraints of capitalism, much more often, unsolicited. This is not surprising, but consistent with the process of power, a key feature of nihilistic subject. The goal orientation and description of the effectiveness of actions not only for communication to the outside but serves to reinforce the establishment of the internal structure of the person if not substantiate the confirmation of the transaction by setting the goal opponent (enemy), universal partial achievement (set remain alive) and outcome (here is the effectiveness of the means determine the value of the object) is particularly crucial as a process. Otherwise apathy and failure would lead to forms of depression, clinical cases in their arguments are true "new anarchy" have blamed each other for the mass line orientation by social anarchists’ and their ineffectiveness of leading to the dependent stance.

In this argument against collectivity it is highlighted the weakness of society to today to establish its potentialities for emancipation because these substituted forces do not offer very little to the total liberation, rather than for the benefit of those who participate. In this way you could say, structures that offer a therapeutic work can simply be made to the brand, or even the militant anti-fascism as a form of social activism from a mere hostility. I do not think that one would agree with this so far-fetched hypothesis. The solidarity and collective struggle even with small limited results have shown that it is effective against the enormous authoritarian machine.

In conclusion to this discussion for de-socialization. It is obvious that this massive recourse to individualistic autonomy fails to understand that not all people are necessary saves and good to want to participate in anarcho-nihilistic process for gaining strength. This argument is so flimsy as the argument from the other side that people are sociable by birth. I believe that people form their pro-society or pro-individual preference, each by their own special way. Most gain self-esteem, confidence and sense of control of their environment through not so much the power individually, but by a collective cooperation as a result of socialization. The absence of meaning afflicting nowadays leads to a peculiar alienation which internalizes the expectations which were lost in time of crisis and a society of abundance came to an end and the first who died was the consumer as an anthropological type in capitalist narrative unit autonomy.

Yet there are sufficient opportunities to be fostered the individualistic purchasing power as a result of capitalist consumption. The consequences of the decline of civil rights in individual and social level and the various "fees" of history, the narratives, left naked human by the collective vision, and this need in a portion of youth to cover the "new anarchy”. And if invoked the force with rabies and conscience contradictory statements at the opposite end as a result of the double bond can cause a sense of grandeur, identification with the aggressor, as a result of depression anxiety, guilt, the repressed, hostility, suicidal behavior, unsaturated hedonism and narcissistic personality. It is evident that the articulation of speech several times through anti-social behavior and misanthropy as ultimate bulwark of support and we have seen it in the texts (articles) of supporters but mainly (and) those arrested in their attitudes to the court, together, to solidarity. Hope this will be of some concern.

Wolf leader always willing for.... 1.good, 2.bad (there is always a choice)

The current reality many times within the insurgents makes emotions as sources and not as a solution of social problems. Especially in modern metropolitan environment this defuse did not come several times by the activism as lifestyle. Anarchism is no exception. The shift to the mysterious, primitive, natural because what we are called to live together has no facet normal, from the society of the spectacle we spent in the society of prey. Several supporters of the "new anarchy" invoke that while there is enough surplus to sheep on the part of submissive society, lacking the insurgents’ wolves against the current.

As much as we think that certainly primitive societies had neither stress nor crisis, and that the human was creating less stress and were more satisfied by their life, no one can deny that survival in primitive societies was not easy, nor was it all rosy and magical. We tend and ease to think that social and psychological problems will disappear as if by magic (in its literal essence) if we return to primitive lifestyle. This argument is equally naive to those who rely on that all problems will disappear immediately after the revolution and the establishment of anarchy, because we will remove power. As Anarchists we tent to believe that several problems of the authoritarian world will finally end with the stop creating their cause but this is different and certainly no one can promise to anyone an angelic world even much natural, primitive or antiauthoritarian.

Surely overpopulation and urbanization, alienation of the human from nature, the cut-throat pace of life in big cities and the removal from the community lifestyle are key components of industrial society and capitalism. The Industrial Revolution significantly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population living in them in relation to the suburban environment. The new conditions created new problems and I am quite convinced that many of the mental illness is a result of lifestyle.

To ask a return to a more natural symbiotic lifestyle is completely different from the generalized and vague invocation of return to the primitive way of life, destruction of technology and even culture as a result of this. We can perceive the invocation to return to primitive societies as a result of the natural world has provided a much more stable frame due to the slow change and therefore a greater sense of security. I believe that everything by the one or the other way society dominates on nature and not the opposite. How much we will mitigate this relationship is a goal of every anarchist tendency.

Just because changes can be made both in the use of technology in relation to the economy, see de-growth, so I think that the level of proficiency is not only sufficient but also ample. The late M. Bookchin believed it strongly when talking about radicalization of nature, and for an anarchism after the era of scarcity. Although by the current crisis a dominant narrative says that the affluent society has been finished and the output and surplus indicators show that there is potential for the maintenance and development of all enough to change example. In this we owe our belief that nothing is over and we refuse to accept the postmodern theories of the end of history and accept the de-ideologication, at least adjacent to the Social Anarchism. "New anarchy" refers to the denial of culture because in my opinion is an easy spectacular rhetoric in articulation of speech but stays until up there.

The reason is probably that the return to nature and especially in small communities requires strengthening and not an individualizing collectivity. Unlike the metropolitan system that identifies and de-personificates, smaller communities are forced instead of selfishness to survive seeking the participation, cooperation and organic solidarity. Especially the refusal of technology, the need for human cooperation is not just necessary it is imperative.

We will all agree that regardless tendency that in the modern system of state of emergency every change is forced upon us even by violence by the side of the dominant forces. That is why the struggle for water, land and freedom for everybody and must consciously make people deny the current lifestyle as a choice and not a return to the ancestral past that is replete as anchoritism or because of cataclysmic event called rebellion, revolution and leads to anarchy. Because quite simply no one is going to choose the freedom to return back to hunters and collectors societies. And that will not change with no nemesis as green and be.

Nowadays many people are beginning to realize what the authorities do against them instead of them especially with the decline of the rule of the law and the shift to the security state. This alone is not enough. The power is a coherent ideological structure that creates, manufactures and constantly recreates social relations, to the point that the individual resistance does not sound but is out of context and if individual exceptions come to confirm the rule.

In this era of violent economic redistribution of wealth called crisis, our lives depend on the decisions made by others, especially in the financial level. Nevertheless, even so the life expectancy is several times greater than the corresponding human primitive era. This is the result of culture technology, medicine, science and general knowledge are often proponents of the "new anarchy" tend to underestimate. Several times between the dialogues and the articulation of speech I felt like mental health worker is part of a scientific ideological alliance against people (and society - this argument sounds and other anarchist tendencies) and must accept collective responsibility when at the same time denouncing the collectivise responsibility as authoritarian process by those who summoned us. Let us establish a little our thought making it emancipated from the generalized anti-epistemological nihilism. Not all knowledge, or science, pedagogy, etc., is solely responsible for the enforcement of capitalism: It helps to maintain the system in the same way contributes to the degradation of it. Now if the balance is tilted to the side in favor of the system, this is a quantitative problem not solved nor the continued depreciation of knowledge, denial of science or an uncompromising alternative chermpalismo. Contrary to reclaim the forests and water, to liberate, to radicalization and bring it even closer to nature for the benefit of everyone individually, but all total.

What we are experiencing today is related neither to insecurity nor the primitive human, but by the imposition of a more or less security and insecurity (and here we have a double bond, respectively) compared to that seen as 'normal' not for human beings, but on the subject of citizen or not, see eg. the case of HIV-positive drug dependent women. In many cases today's society allows verbal aggression individually but collectively suppress militancy (see the case of the 15 antifascists). It enables as an individual and collective right to fear, we can individually angry even re-sent watching TV, but no collective descent of citizens on the street for protest. This alone shows that the argument of individualism is not only not attempted to power but many times and fair in its efforts to weaken the mass struggle.

Generally speaking, the outcome of today's society, "new anarchy" is a pessimistic perception of things. So Babis Papadimitriou is. The behavior is not only regulated by the government or the authoritarian mechanisms. On the way back to nature even in primitivism there is no legal restriction, but this has not reduced the most of the internal migration to the metropolitan center, either now in a period of crisis created considerable decentralization. That no one wants to do does not mean it cannot. Just a matter of choice as to do good or to do the abominable. Its culture and ethics that most often play an important role, not only the nature only.

In primitive societies, in general, no one can doubt that life is in phases. Quite often with distinct rites procedures for switching from one to another. This is a socialization phase and not an individual choice. The aging of the man in a hunting tribe as a process that there is no sport or hobby but to ensure the community of all meat, and at this point there is no nugget individualistic choice. Then, the next step is to start a family and here there is no excuse put forward several people today who claim the law to being a bachelor. Because, unlike the narrative lonely wolves, wolves are born and live in herds with evaluative system and hierarchy. Alone remains a de-socialized entity The Wolf man (figure attractive but tragic in solitude), but this is only in the realm of literature, field like for emotional glamor in several anarcho-nihilists.

Homo hominy lupus?

Among the views of Hobbes and Leviathan should something be selected for human and nature? That is believing that is by nature a cruel and evil animal without compassion for his fellow man, the possibility of man removed option beyond the selfish behavior. The concept for "the benefit of mankind" does not seem to correspond to the "new anarchy" if there are only selfish people, then you might as well apply a Thatcherite dictum that there are societies only people from the socio-biological theory of E. Wilson on with human nature and the famous drawing of mammals, but this leads to eugenics normalization. Human nature is intertwined with the possibility of freedom. For the proponents of the "new anarchy" important degree of personal freedom in connection with the editorial collective guarantee guaranteed rights.

By this way according to the rhetoric of the "new anarchy" and because of this condition there is a steady trend of domination based on technology as a result of the Industrial Revolution and concerns the strengthening of the system at the expense of individual freedom. This is partly true in these times of crisis and at intervals, but the system always finds new ways and psychological contracts to strengthen it without having to curb civil liberties. Using technology helps to achieve this, but it does not confirm the rhetoric that people are anxious to offer total liberation, they can do it by offering the refusal of technology, have more hope for the success of the project, since this type society would collapse or would give very different results than expectations in the eyes of the external observer. No evidence sufficient to conclude that the total liberalization and technological progress are two incompatible concepts. It is the use of the power that makes the enforcement mechanism technology like social movements to make it part of the release. This is because although many times we see the outcome as inevitable, in fact it is not. It is simply the result of arbitrariness on the altar of profit and the market.

That the system should be competing controlling human behavior to work is not an argument itself that the natural propensity of human is social cannibalism. Nor does it mean that the power and selfishness are the counterpart. Plus the stranglehold makes the life of many people simply unbearable. As a result of this human and especially young people often feel a sense of weakness along with a lack of hope and meaning in life in general, that we explain in more detail previously.

The system alienates by forcing people to become more and more distant from a more symbiotic behavior pattern. This imposition however it is not elevate them as accomplices in maintaining the status quo. If we accept this would be like accepting that victims rather than the perpetrators to blame for the current situation. Because of the pressure for regulation of obedience of the people in a more obedient citizen there is a gradual increase of people who are within the integrated social sphere and outside the continuous shrinking social welfare programs.

Juvenile metropolitan gangs delinquent micro-saboteur, people who drop their education, and anarchistic objectors easily led into this situation more than the violent exclusion rather than through conscious opposition to the system or the expectation of "new anarchy". The debate is now resumed.

In Acid waters…

It is obvious that as anarchists of the old or new calendar believe that capitalism is not improved but overturned. This definitely needs to come a revolt not necessarily armed but necessarily violent that other than the individual needs of conflict and transformed a revolution that will create new syntactic structures and radicalize people causing a widespread and fundamental change in the nature of society. This objective is not part of "new anarchy" or at least the part that embraces anti-socialising.

There is a belief in a part of those serving the world of "new anarchy" that because the revolution is impossible especially after 2008, the insurgency is more legitimate. This is not entirely because the revolution is a general process that is broader and more long-term goal for social transformation, so it can inspire and engage more than an uprising which does not inspire but relies both on randomness of the event and the emotional subjects participating in it. If he can not to erect new syntactic structures in danger simply fizzled when the first emotions pass and finished subsequent expansion, fizzles like a carbonated beverage that remains open.

History so far has shown that despite its imperfections the uprising from a social revolutionary movement has the potential to provide a collective imaginary and ideal where people would be willing to endanger and make great sacrifices just because of the promise for creating a completely new and different world.

The uprising and actions based on the fear of painful consequences, except restriction is assumed that you are unsuccessful because they actively take people with them simply force them into an instrument that will stop just found a new source of fear or simply just a state of Deus Ex Machina confirmation to maintain the legitimacy of the constitution and may bring a process of more people becoming conservative as a result of the former fear. Never fear alone did not act as a mechanism for liberation, you need the element of hope for a new best condition.

Social movements believe in mild convert people and holding more symbolic upgraded armed violent actions when necessary, but never with a purely aim targeting people and especially the general population. The reason is that they want to gain them on their side breaking the existing social relationship that prevailed when the revolutionary fever resulting from the initial uprising that people are willing to undergo even the most incredible hardships for the sake of the revolution that is now utterly own case. This was clear from both the French and the Russian Revolutions, but even more pronounced by the Spanish anarchists who invested 100 years of struggle to reach the raid in the sky in July 1936. They never thought people as enemies but instead conducted an uncompromising war against the institutions in this endeavor. Something similar happens with the Zapatistas but I think these are well known and need not be extended. Notably we can say that all these cases there was only a minority of the population that was ready to commit to the end and reach the opposite bank to freedom, but this active minority was really enough to force in society and attracted yet more even tacit acceptance.
This mass revolutionary narrative does not seem to be very interesting for supporters of "new anarchy." They prefer to spread fear through terrorist actions dubious or highly specialized targeting multiple times on targets, without caring for the conversion of people who are this mass called society. Several times they refuse even the dialogue with those who disagree or do not fully embrace their ideas. This is a clear anti-dialectical process. If the state of emergency imposed by special legislation, similar is the application of the act of "new anarchy" through self-appointment, that blows where some decided to act for some without asking and then intimidate them that if they do not agree to this how will suffer the consequences, since this (action) is the only - objective nature and not spared neither knows enemies or friends. So all convicted as guilty or complicit.

Of course the self-image and self-perception of their own for the method, actions and choices are just our way, nothing else. Then have the statement of faith to assume with statements from the wider circle of sympathizers - supporters of "new anarchy" that these actions have enough imagination and cause shock to the system. This essentially is a distortion, a digression from the essence of innovation actually need to be sustained in the struggle against power. But practically the invocation is "turquoise", ie the intersection can bring the gap in the existing. As a phrase sounds very grand, but says nothing? It just - it says it does not mean anything. This is of course not the privilege of the "new anarchy" and the lifestyle anarchism, anarchy (all voltages), the counter power, the left, etc. to be just.

Returning to the argument of pressure in the system, all organized societies engaged by one way or another pressure on their own nationals for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The type and intensity varies from season to season and from society to society depending on the financial and psychological context and ideology to be imposed. When the limit of human endurance and overcome been broken social cohesion, the crime, the difference, depression and other problems psycho-emotional cause deficiencies in its operation. I will not disagree that the history of capitalism is full of deficiencies and a simultaneous possibility of substitution aimed at imposing the respective normality.

No need to imagine a society which makes their nationals in constant conditions of misery and sell their drugs, spectacle, sports, or other substitutes to alleviate their misery. This live daily and wildest today in times of economic and social crisis. Not only drugs that tease the mind, advertising, consumerism (oldest), the resurgence of nationalism and fascism in today, are some methods that evolve, grow or come out of the drawer as the case from the domination of the control of human behavior.

Fear is everywhere, to the point of talking clinically for a time of generalized social phobia. The media contribute to it and are the ideal instrument for the spread of moral panic. Polls influencing public opinion, the entertainment industry that produces terror, sex and violence. Now the pressure minimizing, anxiety, distress, dissatisfaction and the deadlock of the everyday are annihilated. The lack of meaning in conjunction with the depreciation of labor and weakness diversion time beyond the prolonged fixation for idle hours creating the individual greater conflict between him and his world. Modern man from being busy now turned into a bad entity as a (n) erg and survival weakness contributes to making nervous, anxious, and irritable. Has lost tolerance. I believe that many of these features contained subconsciously as starting points in antisocialism and people hating "new anarchy" which reacts to behavioral stimuli even more aggressively.

The man, according to these conditions, facing or behave in conflict with the system and with himself, which is why the internal structure of his ideas must have a coherent structure both for himself and for others.

We saw earlier that de-criminalization putting the person in a peculiar war of all against all. The conflict with the system refers to a battle with a force much stronger, stronger and coordinate with respect to the same (person); if he cannot conquer, to simply destroy or flee to escape, the burn, trauma and self-defeated behavior seem to be the only possible defense.

Violence becomes a relief mean not necessarily for political purposes only. Take for example the family violence and more specifically child abuse. (This allusion can be done in parallel and for anarchist). It is obvious that this kind of violence is not acceptable in any culture. Torturing a child for any reason deemed least odious and abominable. But still there are still voices that argue that the beating and not just for example verbal abuse when used as part of a more 'reasonable' and consistent disciplinary system cannot be considered as abuse. This exophthalmos rationalize violence parental consent is only the dominant authoritarian alibi for the imposition of extinction.

Let's look closely at the example of the turtle: As you go along the street you meet a turtle without a shell (shell). Suddenly you hear a voice calling you to answer the question: If you think turtle is naked or homeless. Here one can observe the ideological manipulation. First a turtle without its shell is dead. So the question is highly misleading because putting the issue outside of the framework of the general situation making the perpetrator innocent (because someone deliberately tortured and led to death). Instead, it shifts the responsibility to the victim. The choice of a naked turtle is focused on ethics and the homeless in the socio-economic aspect. We will however reiterate that the turtle is neither naked nor homeless, but DEAD!!! This option was not even put as a possibility. This is the power of authoritarian discourse to create and direct the reality. The discussion can be continued if the turtle is complicit or partly responsible for her death, style, prestige and power that carries voice, etc. In place of the turtle may well be a seropositive, an immigrant, even a political or social idea. I hope I was understood.

This reasoning is simply misleading because it separates the form from the content: As there is a good domestic violence -in the essence that admonish- so there is a good and legitimate state repression. Therefore the assessment of existence of child abuse and not only finally is depending on how it produces the behavior that makes a person fit or not with the existing system of society. Getting to a point where the word "abuse" touches everything but not the power and whoever exercises. A similar netting is unacceptable by anarchists as individuals as groups, as a current and as a movement.

Because of the generality of the intensity of the state and capitalism we should not allow the alienation, loneliness low self-esteem, depression, hostility, juvenile delinquency, rape, intimidation, abuse, become part of the action methods us. Although and unfortunately the enemy is not imminent has already been inside. It is a different thing to use counter-violence as a defense to the violence of the state (this means the slogan violence to violence of the authority) and not to use the instruments of opponent to face political corruption, racial hatred, fascism and generally not changed in another group hatred with "anarchist" wrapper. The dialogue with the proponents of "new anarchy" and even if they refuse it, is an ideological and a moral conflict: for freedom of choice (without taking of costs in mind) from one, in favor of freedom of choice does not come against life as a value on the other.

The current situation is not the result of chance. It is nothing of the result of the conditions imposed by the State to the retreat of collective demands of institutional illegitimacy against the society and the individual’s boxing is now alone and naked. Crisis is the forcible redistribution of wealth, creating a new stage in capitalist history. In the new era dawning sovereignty trying to implement the following dystopian condition: The institutions are not adapted to serve people. Unlike the people will adapt to the demands of institutions. That democracies by the state, for the state and to the state. As the emergency regime intensifies repression to enforce uses health or even humanitarian excuses, eg sanitary bombs etc.

The system always creates ways of relaxation in the soccer fields for youth, self-help groups, civil and ecclesiastical charity solidarity. Like the TV, does not impose them, their use is "voluntary" and optional. No one requires from the other to consume, to adopt a fashion, or watch TV in criminal terms. Instead, is imposing it to them creating new social relations that underlie this dependency. The return to the nature through extreme sports, o Indian meditation, psychotherapy trendy, the reality show, even the metropolitan apolitical violence are escape mechanisms. We all complain about the happenings but nobody closes the TV, or stop consumption, lifestyle etc.

This is not only because of habit but because of social relationship that had been imposed the habit. To be a change in behavior need someone to decide taking another example. Totalitarianism uses fear, freedom uses persuasion. Even if this has not have quick results. Consumerism as an ideology will not be stopped because some are afraid to consume, simply there will be a temporary change in behavior which will return back to normality and with greater intensity after some time. Therefore, I do not really consider effective a way of action which requires phobic acceptance. The struggle for freedom seeking people who seek it and not those who are afraid. Those who believe in the adoption of fear adopting totalitarian ideals without knowing it. Fascism always relied on fear to others. So we have to convince them to come with us and not them extort or intimidate them to do something they actually do not want or do not want it.

We do not think that one has in mind a society in which there will be an endless competition based on the strength (not necessarily physical). Or maybe not? The ultra-liberalism asks for an unconditional liberalization. The same freedom are aiming also anarcho-capitalists who are also inspired by individualism. Such a society in which a person can satisfy his/her passion for power can only achieved by starting destroying large numbers of people, populations and local cultures and homogenizing those who survive. This as a potentiality is as inherently repugnant and cannot alleviate misanthropy even if they been “enriched” with tones of Stirnerist selfishness or Nietzschean superman's will or natural lifestyle and primitivism. The destruction of the existing system should have a plan for something better, not just destruction and what he encountered. The rest is just dystopias and it will not follow anyone, I believe that not even those who rely on them.

Despite revolutions so far did not manage to liberate the people, yet the passion for individual empowerment and social liberation remains. To gain an idea or a social movement even a rudimentary support, should have a positive ideal. The invocation of "new anarchy" in favor of selfish person already exists under capitalism the consumer's narrative enrichment gaming, good marriages, in which people can buy on-autonomy with economic power. The narration is in these times of crisis has been overcome by leaving the metropolises of the world crowd free from work and exemplary asks other allegiance to not become those so.

The same applies to the unconditional return invoked in nature, and generally anti-technology this expression instead. Most people would argue that nature is beautiful and seductive. This is an urban - tourist narrative. A farmer would have a totally different view. And for him the metropolitan life can be looked beautiful and seductive than the daily toil that has rural work. Primitivism gets back to nature and converts it into a utopian pipe dream, especially when combined with the anti-social stance and the denial of civilization. Many would like to return to such a situation. To eliminate the negative and destructive consequences of industrial society does not mean that to win one should not sacrifice the other. This is a narrative that is often invoked and authority in trying to justify something as inevitable. The popular saying "we cannot have our cake and eat it", does not mean that we must choose or pie or dog. Cooperation and symbiotic mutualism is another option otherwise danger post-composed as "primitivism or barbarism, primitivism is barbarism" which is not entirely valid.

Most people today are confused about their own future, their children, and society and generally where things lead. Introversion and the transfer of responsibility to themselves, the complicity of "together we ate 'creates a great mental conflict. The promise of prosperity in exchange for political action led to several award, apathy and not being able to think neither seriously nor too complex compared with difficult or obscure topics. Hence the use of easy and populism has significant momentum: One or the other, and we simply cleaned. Certainly any political ideology or movement should be addressed to all and not only to those who are more "intelligent", "thinking", "reasonable" or more "workers", "farmers", "revolutionaries" from others. The power constructs identities and roles, the rebel movements must build - jointly shape consciences. Towards cultivation arguments, solve problems, choice of methods and goals, processing ambiguities and inconsistencies that they can cause so the distortion of facts to a single truth - our own and the extreme language is an obstacle to communication, which is why in our opinion should be avoided.
If the spread of the ideas diffusion with the most simplified form, in which missing verbal content (if you missed the point I wanted to challenge you) and arbitrary language then maybe help people to see more clearly things. Again, the key word is input and not enforced. The cheap, phobic and extreme propaganda of the transaction (and not only) has only short-term success. The ideas to succeed must take root as a social relationship, it takes dedication and not instability change attitudes when it appears some better propaganda as a means for the benefit of another same or inferior idea. Surely invoking emotional particular value in the first days of the uprising, but this is an exception.
It is a fact that even shortly before the final outcome of the struggle we do not expect as revolutionaries, let alone as anarchists, that we will have the majority on our side. Instead, we will be on the side of those who revolt aimed at freedom and to contribute to the even greater radicalization of them. Yet this again does not ensure that they will choose our own way. Social struggle is a conflict between dominant and dominated to stop sovereignty. When this conflict reached a point that only occur between the revolutionaries and the people, then this strategy only leads to a mutual extermination among the oppressed in the interests of authority The strategy to condemn as jointly responsible the consumers of a brand because they have consumerist habits does not contributes towards radicalization. Instead, to convince them that they have been victims of advertising, marketing and generally the capitalist lifestyle that destroys nature and local communities would be more meaningful. At least as strategic, social anarchism chooses war with the institutions - peace with people. "New anarchy" chooses to against them all. Many believe that this is problematic because de-symbolize action and reinforce the doubt and fear. Feelings which manufactured by authorities, been preserved by it and create every time its perpetuation. If we want to over through authority we must not become rulers and should not identify with the aggressor. We do not become like the monster, do not become the same monster. This is the essence of the anarchist ideal indeed? It is certain that the individual and social liberation will not occur accidentally or spontaneously because human nature is what it is. The truth however is that bullying will not speed up the whole process, the delay only.

The borderline: together or separated

The choice as a dilemma resembles the previous example of turtle. Anyone who believes that it is not or does not want to be related to Anarchism requires neither suffer nor suppressed. But truth and reality that the "new anarchy" needs the "space" and its structures regardless of whether the abhors.

The serial presence of supporters of "new anarchy" especially in public counter-information (eg Indymedia) has on several occasions polarized the situation rather facilitates the ideological ferment. It is not so much dogmatic way of refusing to identify anything as old, social, etc., which almost seems to distort the original aims of the Historical Foundation of the Anarchist Movement. I believe that through the aspirations of the supporters' new anarchy "is not the hegemony, but must be recognized as equal partners (reminiscent of the effort of psychiatry to convince that is equal and worthy medical epistemological). Proponents of the "new anarchy" as rebellious children worldwide not only power but also the regularity of Social Anarchism symptomatic superiority-inferioriority. Superiority-inferioriority is the double bond division between the self-image of himself with the external transaction acceptance or refusal of this identity by others. Because, no matter what rely expressing this is another identity regardless whether the refuse. Compliance and rigid belief are inherent.

To be able to stand in that the internal (inside the movement) war between all, should show an uncompromising attitude. "New anarchy" should appear consistent with the Ego and inconsistent with others with moral or social conditions. "New anarchy" as individualistic approach wishes neither to unite people, not their worlds. This would seemed societal.

Although "new anarchy" is the rhetoric of anti-compliance has religion, for the sponsor of the "new anarchy" nihilism plays the role psychological constitution as meaning almost the same extent that performs religion or at least the ideology respectively. It needs to believe in the basic constitution of identity and reasons for mental economy and defense. Since the "new anarchy" is justified in itself need not be considered ethical or socially correct, nor can compare and consider not only right but also a egotistic possibility to impose on others.

"New anarchy" by this way becomes a totalitarian authority. Often anti-dialectical. Anything against the beliefs, the ways and means of "new anarchy” must be nullified verbally and even physically, reaching and intimidation of dissidents.

Theoretically narcissism having for their image and hedonism for the quality and dynamics of their actions comes as an internal suppressor to limit the thinking and behavior because of their de-socialization. In combination with the feeling of inferiority-superiority, they seek strength, not to fight in commonplace ways other traditional - dead shapes of Social Anarchism or anarchy because they consider it as a moral impasse and thereby seek to impose their refusal to others. According to Erie Hofer, "The means to stop a mass movement is often replaced with another movement. A special and strange substitute of mass movements is immigration. Migration offers something of him who hopes to find a disappointed in the mass movement, ie. A change and the possibility of a new beginning.
"New anarchy" appears as a departure from traditional anarchism. Erie Hofer points out that "the discontent is perhaps greater when misery is bearable when things are so promising, apparently, a better situation. Resentment seems to increase with the reduced distance from the desired purpose. This applies equally whether we approach the end or away from him. "Once those circled A did because they believed that "Anarchy is order" and that separations destroy Organic Solidarity between people. Today the A (anarchism) for some need to escape from nihilism that has surrounded. Some seek to breathe again and organized, unlike others want to migrate to a "new anarchy." Good journey. Nothing is over yet...

"The paradox is the question of Chaos"
Chaos and culture

"The enemy of Chaos is order. But the enemy of the Order is an enemy of Chaos"
Theory of Social Entropy, Gregor Markovic

author by AFED'er - AFEDpublication date Sat Nov 21, 2015 00:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Can someone translate this into english

 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]