💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › andrea-castro-notes-on-autonomy-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:38:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Notes on Autonomy & Anarchism Author: Andrea Castro Date: 4/13/2019 Language: en Topics: autonomy, ableism, Philippines, hierarchy, queer, climate change, people of color, Authoritarian Left, intersectionality, disability, horizontal organizing, nationalism, organization Source: https://medium.com/@andreacastr0/notes-on-autonomy-anarchism-a77ed4add3b6
I identify as an autonomist leftist largely based on personal
experience. Autonomist can be used somewhat synonymously with anarchist
— I use the term because peoples’ conception of anarchy usually = total
chaos, which more often than not derails any further conversation about
it.
I was first introduced to Philippine nationalism when I was younger, but
I’ve moved away from primarily nationalist political spaces because of
constant authenticity checks, essentialism, and erasure of indigenous
peoples under state-enforced identity. I also was looking for ways to
speak — and resist — in more intersectional terms.
I’m a brown queer femme. I’m anti-imperialist, anti-state,
anti-patriarchy, prison abolitionist. I’m for third world liberation and
joint struggle. I’m 1.5 generation — all of these things mean that I am
constantly building my home in the margins.
I understand anarchism as a collective means of living/a form of
relationship that strives to be explicitly non-hierarchical and
anti-authoritarian in its decision-making processes.
Principles that I stick to are non-hierarchical collectivism — which
basically means that anyone can and should be able to plug in based on
their abilities and capacity. I’m about accessibility in organizing —
especially around disability and chronic illness. I’m not down with
strict leadership models that sacrifice those at the very bottom in
order to “advance” the revolution.
For me, anarchism involves a commitment to combat and challenge all
forms of oppression, an integration of communal care practices and
mutual aid + mutual investment, and creating spaces for people to be
their full selves (in a way that isn’t violent towards others) without
fear, shame, or threat to their existence.
My understanding is based a lot less on dead white guy theory and very
heavily on what type of organizing can include the parts of who I am.
The single biggest reason I began identifying as an autonomist is
because it made the most sense for me in terms of how I organize and
build with people. Anarchism + abolition are really about dismantling
all fucked up hierarchies and systems of oppression, which means I can
talk about all the parts of myself (sick brown queer femme) without
having to stick to what “the party” dictates.
I try not to make “real organizers are/do [x thing]” statements because
I don’t necessarily see a division between Organizers (with a capital O)
and everyone else. It feels like the same hierarchical distinction made
between Leaders and followers, and it also feels low-key ableist to
imply that some people stand at the forefront while everyone else just
takes orders.
I’m also really over the idea of leftist martyrdom “for the masses” — as
if we aren’t also part of the people trying to get free, trying to have
livable lives. None of us are exceptional or superhuman. We have no
obligation to run ourselves into the ground and self-sacrifice for the
sake of a movement that isn’t mutually invested in our own survival.
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoism)
A significant difference between anarchism and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism
is hierarchy. MLMs depend on cadres (leadership) to make the ultimate
decisions, which is why they often stick to a central message handed
down from the top. Anarchism is horizontal, which means having a lot of
intentional discussions around consensus and each person’s needs. MLM
organizing tends to be more oriented towards building critical mass and
numbers because they believe that the solution is to displace the
current state with a “people’s state” — a point that anarchists
fundamentally disagree with because we believe that states in any form
simply replicate the existing hierarchies of violence and systems of
oppression.
The tensions between anarchist and authoritarian leftist organizing also
often come down to questions of capacity, scale, structure, and urgency.
It’s often the case that authoritarian leftist organizing (in its many
variations) is willing to sidestep conversations on internal conflict
and will readily engage in disposability politics for the sake of
scaling up rapidly, at an unsustainable pace. Which is something I’m not
down with — because I am definitely one of the people (among many who
make up my community) who gets left behind over and over again due to
chronic illness, precariousness, limited access to resources, etc. But
it’s tougher to build a large group with anarchism because of
decentralization — with the intent that the focus is on meaningful
relationships and not burn out or exclusion.
What is a “movement” between billions of people who don’t know or have
any deep investment in each other? Another frustrating part of focusing
on mass movements is that the more that people push for critical mass,
the less considerate they are of pace — and the less attention they pay
to who they leave behind in the process of growing, growing, growing.
I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if
they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think
that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a
scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy
looking elsewhere.
I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if
they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think
that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a
scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy
looking elsewhere.
At the same time, we are still working on how to organize autonomously
in ways that are resilient and lasting. It seems like anarchist
organizing, while more forgiving and flexible, is also far more
susceptible to disintegration when hard-line demand for consistency
isn’t made. And yet autonomous spaces are the ones where I have felt the
most whole, and where my needs and limitations have been taken
seriously.
How do we prepare for intensified state violence and scarcity without
pre-emptively committing ourselves to the idea that we have to lose and
sacrifice people along the way? (And who gets to choose who is left
behind or sacrificed?)
Urgency, first and foremost, brings up questions of scale, and
recruiting rapidly to meet or exceed critical mass. To me this
immediately sounds like a quick way to replicate a lot of toxic
situations full of distrust, and people taking out their unprocessed
pain on each other. We carry a lot of trauma and we also bring that into
the spaces that we organize in. I really appreciate the phrase “move at
the speed of trust” — which involves growing and tending to each
individual relationship I have with friends and comrades. And that can
feel excruciatingly slow in its own way.
I am trying to understand how we build movements and collectives that
are prepared for long-term resistance — without just leaving the weakest
and most vulnerable behind to fend for themselves. It can be depleting,
though. The feeling of failure, of having to hit the reset button over
and over in spite of different sorts of fragmentation and barriers can
be daunting and is one of the bigger causes of my depression and
isolation. But it’s the work of collective survival for those of us who
still believe in the possibility of life. I’ve thought of it for a long
time as intentionally, carefully carving out spaces for ourselves in the
margins — I inhabit so many in-betweens, and I’ve also found so many
others here.
What does it take to maintain a uniform political line for so long? Who
is erased? Who is made invisible?
What would it look like to slow the pace of organizing so that people
aren’t left behind because they can’t physically, emotionally, or
materially keep up?
We are surrounded by crises but is it still possible to respond with
deliberation? To take (or free) more time? To make demands through rest
instead of rushing to produce?
What if we think of urgency as a constant instead of as an emptying
hourglass? (Related: what if we didn’t see climate change as the end of
our species but as something to still prepare for, as a reason to build
tools for future generations to be able to move through?)
Who is liberation for if only the fittest make it to the finish line?