Documentary: Stateless - Anarchy Emigrates by Todd Schramke

Marina Brown catskillmarina at
Wed Dec 19 09:16:54 PST 2018

Hash: SHA256

On 12/17/18 10:28 PM, jim bell wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 1:48:02 PM PST, furrier
> <furrier at> wrote:
>> These guys are a joke, trying to capitilize on anarchy to push
>> forward their own agentas. I am disgusted.
> I understand what you are saying.  Despite the fact that I have
> called myself an anarchist (libertarian-anarchist) since 1995, I
> have noticed with dismay that a lot of people who call themselves
> "anarchists" (and a lot of people who are called "anarchists") are
> actually just big-government-loving socialists, embarrassed at the
> failures of socialism. For a comment that's better than I'd take
> the time to write, see:
- -how-many-times-does-it-have-to-be-said/
>  Jim Bell
> A partial quote by Keith Preston, which also quotes others
> inside:[partial quote begins]
> Another claim is that anarchist communities and associations must
> be “inclusive.” Of course, anyone who has spen time around the
> general anarchist milieu knows how exclusionary anarchists actually
> are. I generally like to cite this comment made by a former an-com
> some years ago as an illustration:
> I used to be an anarcho-communist. Actually, I started out as
> someone who was vaguely sympathetic to mainstream libertarianism
> but could never fully embrace it due to the perceived economic
> implications. I eventually drifted to social anarchism thanks to
> someone who’s name I won’t mention, because it’s too embarrassing.
> After hanging around them for a while I realized that, for all
> their pretenses, most of them were really just state-socialists who
> wanted to abolish the State by making it smaller and calling it
> something else. After about a year of hanging around Libcom and the
> livejournal anarchist community, I encountered people who, under
> the aegis of “community self-management”, supported
> - smoking and alcohol bans - bans on currently illicit drugs - bans
> on caffeinated substances (all drugs are really just preventing you
> from dealing with problems, you see) - censorship of pornography
> (on feminist grounds) - sexual practices like BDSM (same grounds,
> no matter the gender of the participants or who was in what role) -
> bans on prostitution (same grounds) - bans on religion or public
> religious expression (this included atheist religions like
> Buddhism, which were the same thing because they were
> “irrational”) - bans on advertisement (which in this context meant
> any free speech with a commercial twist) - bans on eating meat -
> gun control (except for members of the official community-approved
> militia, which is in no way the same thing as a local police
> department) - mandatory work assignments (ie slavery) - the blatant
> statement, in these exact words, that “Anarchism is not
> individualist” on no less than twelve separate occasions over the
> course of seven months. Not everybody in those communities actively
> agreed with them, but nobody got up and seriously disputed it. -
> that if you don’t like any of these rules, you’re not free to just
> quit the community, draw a line around your house and choose not to
> obey while forfeiting any benefits. No, as long as you’re in what
> they say are the the boundaries (borders?) of “the community”,
> you’re bound to follow the rules, otherwise you have to move
> someplace else (“love it or leave it”, as the conservative mantra
> goes). You’d think for a moment that this conflicts with An-comm
> property conceptions because they’re effectively exercising power
> over land that they do not occupy, implying that they own it and
> making “the community” into One Big Landlord a la Hoppean feudalism
> So I decided that we really didn’t want the same things, and that
> what they wanted was really some kind of Maoist concentration
> commune where we all sit in a circle and publicly harass the people
> who aren’t conforming hard enough. No thanks, comrade.
> Of course, it is also true that these “anti-fascist” folks really
> don’t care about “exclusion,” anyway. As I mentioned, many of them
> are Communists, state-socialists, and social democrats, and even
> the anarchist contingent among them seems to be little more than
> dupes and useful idiots. What they are really concerned about is
> “exclusion” on politically incorrect grounds, while insisting on
> retaining the right to “exclude” whomever or whatever they want for
> themselves. Therefore, an Anarcho-Marxist Politically Correct
> Commune=Good, Conservative Religious White Folks Enclave=Horrible,
> and People of Color Racial Separatist Community=Understandable
> Because History Except That Ikcy Homophobia Part.
> However, much of this “debate” is for naught. While it is certainly
> true that some people might prefer to live in ethnically, racially,
> religiously, politically, sexually, etc. exclusionary communities
> given the freedom of choice to do so, the meta-politics of a
> civilization organized on the principle of free association (i.e.
> anarchism) would come much closer to resembling the Mr. Spockian
> ideal of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” than, for
> example, the Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, Orania, or Kiryas Joel. A
> better model might be to review the endless array of culturally,
> religiously, ethnically, professionally, academically,
> occupationally, or politically themed organizations that are listed
> in the Yellow Pages of any major city, or the list of organizations
> found on the campus of a large university. No doubt the
> “anti-fascists” regard themselves as heroic freedom fighters, and
> as regular Sophie Scholls who deserve a pat on the back for doing
> their part to prevent the next wave of genocides (all the while
> including hammer and sicklers in their ranks). Fortunately, they
> are as politically irrelevant as their neo-Nazi tribal enemies. 
> [end of very long partial quote by Keith Preston, quoting others as
> well.] I believe that I agree wholeheartedly with the above
> commentary.                      Jim Bell

Keith Preston is not the best person to quote when discussing anarchism.

Honestly i don't know ANY anarchists in my circle that support that
awful list of authoritarian practices, though i have to say that there
is a bit of truth in the accusation that the anarchist community can
be exclusionary.

- -- Marina
Version: GnuPG v2


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list