Engaging directly with the contemporary resurgence and renewal of anarchism, Tomás Ibáñez, in the third chapter of Anarchism is movement, endeavours in part to conceptualise what he calls the “constitutively changeable” nature of the movement.
Binding together thought and action, anarchism develops within mutually sustaining relations between practice guided by and creative of ideas, and ideas generative of and resulting from practice. And to the extent that anarchism in turn develops within a historical context, this same relationship between thought and action is paralleled at the broader level of the movement’s relationship with any particular historical moment: anarchism is made possible (as thought and practice) by the context from which it emerges, while that context is changed by anarchism.
In other words, the anarchist movement’s capacity to surge up anew depends on its renewal and its renewal depends on its capacity to produce the conditions of its resurgence. And it is in this immanent to and fro between idea and practice, and between both and historical setting, that rebellious subjectivities are forged. Should these ties be severed, then anarchism and anarchists will only be found in libraries and museums.
Continue reading #Anarchism is movement: Tomás Ibáñez (3)
Tomás Ibáñez, not without hesitation and only as a heuristic, employs the term “neoanarchism” to refer to the resurgence and changing nature of the movement in the wake of May 1968, France. But these changes have not been without their critics, so that in what follows, the second chapter of Ibáñez’s essay, Anarchism is movement, he endeavours to both explain and defend what he considers to be the virtues of our new anarchism.
Continue reading #Anarchism is movement: Tomás Ibáñez (2)
With this post, we (Autonomies) begin the publication of an english language translation of Tomás Ibáñez essay, “Anarchism is movement: Anarchism, neoanarchism and postanarchism” (2014).
Continue reading #Anarchism is movement: Tomás Ibáñez (1)
The eukariot counter-propaganda cell has released a second issue of reflections-interventions. If we share the essays that follow, it is exclusively because of how much we share with them …
Continue reading The politics of ecstasy: From Eukariot
The role of principle in anarchist thought and action, as I understand it, is to liberate the positive ethical life of human beings. Thus the principle of power-negation is rather a constitutive principle of the desired society than a rule for life within that society. Put more correctly: an authentic relationship between persons, as understood by anarchists, presupposes the absence of power of some over others, but ‘absence of power’ says nothing positive about the content of that relationship, and that content will be the creation of those persons.
… nothing secures an anarchist society, whether of large extent or of commune-size or consisting of two persons, except continuous realization of the human potential for free engagement and disagreement, always in recognition of the personhood of the other.
Continue reading Communal living, making community: David Thoreau Wieck
We (Autonomies) have recently posted a series of articles against the idea of a “revolutionary” government, against the idea of government or the State as an instrument of anti-capitalist reform or radical change.
Continue reading In solidarity: #Fraguas and the creation of community
With the seeming proliferation and celebration of anniversaries of revolutions, “successful” or “failed”, we lose cite of the conceptual wealth and practical weight of the concept itself. We have tried here, however modestly, to reflect upon the history and the significance of the idea. Yet, with every new rebellious event, and with every commemoration of past rebellions, the questions surge up again: what is revolution? are there different kinds of revolutions? Can a revolution, for example, an anti-capitalist revolution, be defined theoretically and/or normatively? Or must we wait upon history, blindly, to tell what such occurrences are?
And what are we to make of “the revolutionary”, the disobedient subjectivity desirous of destroying the old, to create the new? Is such a subjectivity possible, desirous, or a tyrant?
Without wishing to close the debate (indeed, it is impossible to do so), we share a reflection on the imaginary of revolution by Amador Fernández Savater.
Continue reading Reimagining revolution: Amador Fernández Savater
As a complement to our post “Revolution imagined outside history”, we share an essay by the anarchist militant-writer Miguel Amorós on the possibility of revolution after the “death of the working class”.
Notes for a 2015 presentation of a book about the “Incontrolados” and The Friends of Durruti, discussing the “cultural genocide of the proletariat” inflicted by capitalist development and its “eternal present”, the suppression of historical memory, the rise of consumer society and mass culture, and the need for a “non-doctrinaire re-appropriation of the past” in order to build a new culture of resistance. (libcom.org 15/01/2018)
Continue reading Vanishing points in working class culture: Miguel Amorós
Utopia of a Tired Man Borges story Illustration (above) by Federico Abuyé.
Continue reading Revolution imagined outside history