These are roughly the questions I tackle below:
- What is anarchization?
- How can we anarchize assemblages which seem to us almost entirely fascistic?
- How can we actualize propositionary potential trapped within impositionary structures?
- What are some problems with the term “abolition” with regards to political action?
- How do we avoid re-producing structur-fascism?
We need to be really careful when passing judgments about the “fascistic nature” of certain societal constructs. There’s a looming threat of essentialism here that needs to be addressed and taken measures against.
Societal constructs are never fascistic in and of themselves. “Fascistic properties”, which can be mainly defined by consistent tendency towards coercion and homogenization…
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. …
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…
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…
negligible forces
A rogue assemblage of neural activity and metabolic functions. Anarch of r/metaanarchy.
