anaVal

what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?

Anarchism. Although I understand that that term means different things to us so I'm going to use the meaning you gave it a few comments back:

Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy

And this cultural anarchism is taking that critique and applying it to culture. To everyday situations. To the way children are being raised and workers are being hired. To song, writing and all the other arts. What it offers to people is anarchism. A way to live your life without archy. Or as AFAQ calls it: "social revolution" https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj7

This is what I mean when I say revolution: A complete change to the entire social structure. The biggest driving force in any society is culture. While economic forces to play a part they can only exist as long as they are reinforced by culture. The value of money exists in culture. The concept of property exists in culture. An anarchist culture is about looking at these concepts in a way that consciously opposes archy.

Also participating in capitalism does not yet disqualify you from acting anarchically. It's not a all or nothing scenario. You do what you can, where you can. Obviously you should be on the lookout for better alternatives and constantly keep in mind what it is your participating in every time you shop, but as long as your thinking about it, considering your actions in an anarchic framework, you are acting anarchically.

And the more people keep doing this the more they start considering alternatives, at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy. You connect people with skills who don't like having to shop for food and some of them might start their own farm, and because they already have connections to other people in that space they start being able to benefit from that venture as well.

The social/cultural isn't separate from the economic which isn't disconnected from the political. Society is a collection of all and in order to effectively dismantle one we need the help of others. And culture is the easiest by far because all you need is for people to listen and consider the things you say. Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.

But that's just the framework that I use to think about anarchism and society at large. You probably have your own.

counter-culture there’s the word I was looking for when describing punk. That's what I meant with "only one side of it". Counter-culture is only one side of anarchist culture. The side called punk. But there are so many other facets to anarchy that punk doesn't cover. I agree that counter-culture can't build up social systems, which is why I don't call anarchist culture counter-culture. It's something different. Not simply about opposing what exists but also building and imagining what can.

I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.

Are you sure of that? They might not know the theory but just by drawing it they showcase a willingness to act against the established rules. That's a good first step towards learning about anarchy, and while they could "grow out of it" they could also find actual anarchist movement and go deeper into it.

The person who drew it also doesn't matter. It doesn't change what I think when I see it. It doesn't change how much it matters to me. The symbol lives it's own life and even if the person who drew it didn't know that, the people who see it might. Some more curious might find anarchism because of looking up what the deal with them is.

perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy."

My "normalcy" is the direct result of the environment I was raised in and the people I interacted with. It is an idea that changes and evolves constantly as I interact more. I don't only reconsider my conception of "normalcy" but of every word I use as I grow and learn. But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

Which is scary, which makes it unappealing, which makes it actively detrimental for outreach. There are many ways to fight battles, many ways to oppose the status quo and culturally is most certainly one of them. It's not inferior to military action just because people don't die doing it, but I also know it wont be enough on it's own. Just like militancy won't be enough.

One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong. Being able to dictate what you do and how you do it. I am a pacifist. My aversion to violence is one of the foundations of my anarchism. I could never be on the front lines. It scares me. But I know I can do other things, help out in other ways, and that me being able to do that is foundational to anarchism.

You cannot force a person to be anarchist.

Why would I want to?

That was an assertion that needed to be true for the following to work, and another way anarchism differs from "liberalism" and "marxism". Because while you cannot force anyone to become those things too you can force them to be faked. You cannot fake being an anarchist.

it is absolutely not anything that can be called "cultural"

And there is the fundamental disagreement between our "anarchy"s. For me it is a culture. and not much else. Everything else comes from this cultural root. The critique of hierarchy is just this anarchic culture applied to political science.

When I see the black flag it fills me with a sense of belonging. Seeing a Circled A on a street corner frequently makes me smile. Reading anarchist literature gives me a sense of being a part of something bigger and what word could there be for that other than culture? Shifting through the near incalculable amount of stickers in an anarchist space with all the ACABs, black cats and antifa. What is it if not culture?

Although now thinking about I imagine you could call cultural anarchism "punk". I don't think I can. punk is too different. It's backed by the music genre which has a very specific sound and perhaps because I doesn't gel with me I don't consider it the anarchist sound. It's punk. It is anarchic, but it's only one side of it.

I wonder what it is that you consider culture, that it doesn't contain the collective effort needed to build anarchic structures.

Anarchists are not "abnormalities"

The current norm in almost every country is to be a worker in an industry and vote in elections, (even if they don't matter). That's quite far from anarchy.

When I use normal I mean the current mainstream. Or to give more examples: being an artist isn't normal, being self-employed isn't normal, not voting isn't normal (or voting is normal if you remove the double negative). Not working isn't normal. I could go on but I think you get the idea. Obviously anarchy is natural and exists in society but it certainly isn't the norm. But I probably should have used "mainstream" because it seems "normal" seems to invoke concepts of "accepted", "good". not "average"

You mean... what people were doing for thousands of years before states were invented? None of those people thought of themselves as anarchists, you know.

They weren't. Anarchy is the conscious opposition to archy. If those societies didn't have any interaction with archic structures then they didn't know to oppose them therefore they weren't anarchists, but they did live anarchicly and their culture was anarchic, and through that culture you could call them anarchists, because that culture probably had their own methods of dealing with archic structures that tried to impose themselves, which could be considered opposition, but it wouldn't be conscious, or would it... And this is getting out of hand, isn't it.

But that's words. imperfect abstractions over infinitely complex ideas. Shame anarchy is one the most complex ones, since it's entire concept defies singular meaning. The only one you can safely ascribe to it is "against authority", and even that's only if you have a specific meaning of "authority".

I spent one day almost entierly in my pod watching youtube, just like I would at home. For me the pod is my private space. But I understand that most people probably find it too cramped, I imagine in an actual living arrangement there would need to be private common rooms.

OK. here is my incredibly weird perspective on those pods. I like them. Recently I even stayed in one and the only complaint I have is that they are made of plastic and would squeak horrible whenever the person above me moved. I like small enclosed spaces, they make me feel safe, and if the pod was made out of wood or concrete then I would absolutely live in one, as long as there were adequate services nearby: like a kitchen and a bathroom.

They don't take up a lot of space allowing for more people to live in a single house. They offer enough privacy to be comfortable and as an anarchist I welcome the chance to live alongside other people. My apartment is a mess because I cannot bring myself to clean it. Having other people to share responsibilities with would solve that.

for an anarchist perspective on this topic: https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build.

That's no different than saying everyone in the USSR was a Marxist, or that everyone in the US is a liberal.

Those are states. Top-down civilisations that overwrite peoples wishes. They don't need everyone to follow their framework to enforce it, that's what the police is for. Anarchy isn't like that. You cannot force a person to be anarchist. Any anarchist society that exist must by necessity be populated by people that don't follow the statist framework. Who don't follow authority. Who are Anarchist.

The example you gave is perfect. Normal people who did not understand anarchism were too heavy handed with their judgement and thus actual anarchists needed to be found to help manage that society. People who haven't stop their dependence to authority are a problem to an anarchist society, they don't conform to our framework, our culture, our decision making process and our way of life.

Anarchism isn't just a label you put on yourself. It's a culture you pick up. It is a way to look at situations and people around you. Decide things both internally externally. It's a way of life. A way of life that opposes authority.

Anarchism is a way of looking at the world. And I cannot see an anarchist society function without most of the people most of the time acting and living anarcicly. Essentially when I say anarchist I mean someone living in a culture of anarchy. And that culture needs to exist for anarchic social structures to exist.

Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal, justifying it with the same point as I.

Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting. I like to imagine that this post is that.

voted in literally because of the "weakness"

For that to happen there needs to either be majority in the state that think that way or a powerful enough propaganda machine to sway the general public. Not all states have that. If you are dealing with a country that has a well-educated population tactics like that simply won't work. This also outlines why it's vital for every anarchist movement to involve themselves with the general population as much as possible. So large portions of the population will think "oh those are the people that organise that game-night/open kitchen/workshop thing". At this point it becomes a lot more difficult to paint them as violent terrorists because people know them and have had direct interactions with them. It also becomes a lot more difficult to walk back your deal without spreading discontent.

that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up

Everyone in that society is by my definition anarchist. When you give up your dependency on authority you become an anarchist. I'm not using the term as they would I am using it as I would. So to specify: Do you think that every single person would be willing to give up their dependence to authority? Because if they won't they will form a state, when they do you need to coexist with that state.

That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you.

1. Reason I brought that up was to explain why I'm ok with political reservations and not native ones.
2. In this scenario you already are isolated. If the city they are giving you is no different from the land you already occupy and is just smaller then you aren't giving away any advantage. If there is some advantage in the area (Sea access, Narrow passing) I would try and argue that they give that instead.

I find it interesting that with just the description of "A state" you have immediately imagined a worst possible enemy for yourself.

they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly

Against a state like that I'm inclined to agree with you. If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap. However I would immediately ask how, in such hostile environment, did you manage to get a revolt started in the first place. My original scenario imagined a lot more liberal state that would not have enough power to stop the movement before it grew to open revolt, however with the monster you've imagined I don't think it's possible.

You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo

Do we? Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist? What would you do with the people who don't want to be? To say we pose an existential threat to states is to say that no person would voluntarily choose to live in the state if they have the option. I don't know if that's the case but I do think that states think that some people will always be loyal to them.

Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?

There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before. Our revolt is carving it out. Obviously being forced to a reservation by a colonial power is wrong. But I don't see this like that. It's closer to a revolt down-sizing in order to maintain cohesion.

I imagine the state as more a liberal representative democracy. Some place that has freedom of speech and relatively fair elections. The kind of country that actually needs public support to enact their rule. Not an authoritarian hell-scape, I wouldn't trust any deal they make anyway.

I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty

What if the fighting started accidentality? What if the state that is actually a pretty decent liberal democracy where there is a large amount of political freedom. Would you still be part of the revolt? and would you take the deal if, at least for the time being, the current government is sympathetic to your cause?

As for guarantees, what could they offer that would be enough? Lets say the deal gives you the city and surrounding area, opens up trade between you, and allows for free movement of people. There would be a guarded border on the state side but no troops or cops would be allowed inside. Or maybe a DMZ?

Also fooling them with a silly counter-offer is a really good idea, but a part of me thinks that it's kinda cruel to ridicule their genuine offer.