Image for post
Image for post

It’s been half a year since Meta-Anarchism has established its online presence. Within that time period, some amount of theoretical content has been produced as a part of this project.

Fortunately, this content has attracted criticism.

In this text, I try to compile — from my perspective — the most worthy parts of that criticism into several distinct points. Yes, some of those points stand in notable negation to certain theses from my previous publications. But that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.

Image for post
Image for post
An agro-anarchist named Mikhail Shlyapnikov, with the logo of his alterprise

From DeLanda to Graeber

So, here’s this article titled Assemblage Theory and the Capacity to Value: An Archaeological Approach from Cache Cave, California, USA.

It provides a neat practical insight into Manuel DeLanda’s assemblage theory, which I’ve mentioned from time to time in various meta-anarchist publications. Besides that, it invokes David Graeber’s work, which is also evidently beloved by me.

In the context of the article, those approaches are applied to archeology. But what’s attractive about the article’s contents to me is their capacity to be utilized in conceiving meta-anarchist politics.

I’ve just employed the term ‘capacity’ specifically in the DeLandian sense. DeLanda postulates…

Image for post
Image for post

Fragmentation as an alternative to consensus

Consensus is when people reach a mutual agreement on a given issue. Anarchy loves consensus. Actually, some anarchists seem to believe that it’s the only acceptable form of decision-making.

Unfortunately, consensus has its limitations. The capacity for consensus drops rapidly as the size of the group increases; it usually takes a lot of time to reach one; not everyone are fans of participating in sophisticated and lengthy discussions on every single issue. Those are all usual objections to anarchism — and arguments for top-down governments. That is, states.

States rely on the principle of one-for-all decisions. They claim it as…

Image for post
Image for post

1. Essence vs. dynamics

For a Platonic idea, the surrounding context doesn’t matter at all — an idea always retains its internal “essence”, independent of circumstances. Our debates about freedom of capital (ancaps) or control over capital (ancoms), advantages of equality (left wing) or freedom of inequality (right wing) are distinguished by underlying Platonism — if we account for cultural nuances, they could take place in the 18th century and people would barely notice the difference.

For example: we often discuss “money as such”, money as an ideal essence, instead of addressing the certain role of money in a certain…

negligible forces

A rogue assemblage of neural activity and metabolic functions. Anarch of r/metaanarchy.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store