💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rosa-blat-my-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:33:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: My anarchism Author: Rosa Blat Date: 2018 Language: en Topics: violence, a response Source: original translation from french Notes: This text was written following the publication of « Contre l'anarchisme, un apport au débat sur les identités. [1]» It isn't a conversation with the peddlers of ideas who let themselves spit sneakily on a diverse stream they are incapable of understanding. It is though a ''response to a response''[2] that was written answering this text, and which seemed to me as sorry as the first one was. Translation from french by Bus Stop Press.
« We are first and foremost individuals. The definitions, when they are
not cages are like rocks thrown on the water : They create always larger
circles, without any of them being able to fully contain our
individualities. Aware of this, words don't frighten us. Why are we
anarchists ? » Adesso #19, 2004.[1]
Anarchism is an individual behaviour when faced to life, and neither a
social theory, nor a political ideology nor an identity. At least it is
how I see it, and what follows is a personal consideration, a
description of my anarchism.
Anarchism isn't a travel agency that would offer marvellous destinations
to clients who would just want to change their minds for a brief moment.
There is nothing to better or ideologise in this world. Anarchism cannot
fill the void that many people experience from the alienation of this
society, and has nothing to propose to those who need an authority to
guide them, to tell them what to think, how to leave and what to do with
their lives.
This society is filled with average people (accepting and adapting to
norms) who only want to follow quietly the path traced for them. Even
the wrongdoers and scammers of all sorts live in the parameters of the
authoritarian and capitalist mind, and if they break the law or cheat
the rules, it is only because they never have had the opportunity to
success by following them and/or want to force theirs (The ''Mob'' is
full of snitches, traitors, aspiring bosses and other scum, who, even if
they commit actions that anarchists could also be committing, are
nonetheless enemies). For the most part, those taking part in the
fantasised ''social war'' have absolutely no intensions to make theirs
anarchist ideas, if they don't encourage their dreams of consumers and
aspiring bosses. They would laugh at the faces of these missionaries,
reciting their gospels from their pedestals, telling them in their
newspeak of ''Affinity'', ''Perspectives'' and ''Projectuality'' (words
changing meaning in their mouths), implying hypocritically intensions
they've never had. Go late at night cause trouble in a spot for dealers
and you'll see the true colours of this wonderful ''social war''. Saying
that, I don't mean to say that « delinquents » are necessarily enemies
(or idiots). No, I think that like everywhere else in society, there are
individuals who are worth meeting and with whom their could be
interesting complicities. But not more than anywhere else, and can only
be figured out on a case by case basis, individually and independently
from any categorisation or essentialism.
My anarchism is based on individual responsibility, in perceiving the
degrees of implications at work in this society. According to me, an
anarchist should be able to desire, decide and act for themselves and to
take their own responsibilities when faced against their contradictions
(which are inevitable when living in this society)
My anarchism isn't based on a moral system, an unsurpassable theory, a
social abstraction that would stand above me. My anarchism fights
against all systems, including identities and ideologies, which are
barriers in the way of my development as an individual. My anarchism is
a daily tension, a path full of impediment of which no exit is written.
My anarchism is based on my own life, refusing to be a part of a larger
ensemble, a ''whole'' in which I would have to adapt, deny what I am in
order to exist and be tolerated. This is an important point : I don't
need to be recognised in a « milieu » or have my place in a group to
have reasons do develop and carry my ideas. I don't need anyone's
permission to do what I do. « The strongest man in the world is he who
stands most alone. »[2]
If anarchism has most of the time been carried by a minority of
individuals, it is not due to an intentions of anarchists to be in
minority, but it is the truth. We all would like to be billions of
people deciding to live according to many anarchist principles, to fight
for themselves, to experience it and to refuse all authorities. But as I
wish to neither decide nor act for others, I prefer to give up on the
idea to wait for them. « One who overturns one of his limits may have
shown others the way and the means; the overturning of their limits
remains their affair. »[3]
Despite the hopeless attempts of some, anarchism will never be
acceptable for the masses of consumers
I do not know what could work, no one does. Like we say in english « The
Future is Unwritten. » To be an anarchist is to fumble, try to match
personal longings while trying to not get caught in the logics of power
that go above us, and are sadly a part of what we have always known in
this world. The so-comfortable ideological cages aren't meant for me,
because I am complex, multiple and diverse. « No concept expresses me,
nothing that is said to be my essence exhausts me; they are only names.
»[4]
About the dichotomy between ''good anarchists'' and ''bad anarchists''
if it doesn't make no sense at all, it is also serving the interest of
power, especially as anarchists don't have to justify themselves in
front of the media or justice. To be tolerated by our enemies would be
the biggest defeat that we could face. I think we anarchists need to
hold each other tight, despite our divergences because we know it, our
ideas will never be popular. To discredit each other, between different
tendencies of anarchism, for conflicts of power or other reasons is
certainly the activity that consumes the mot energy and end up driving
many away. The diversity of anarchism, in its theory and its practice is
what makes it rich. That some maintain libraries, while others occupy
forests, experiment by building houses and gardens, and others again try
to develop ideas wether on the internet or on paper ; write history,
philosophy, do translations or even poetry, and others again (or the
same) attack power with or without communiqués. All of this is great as
long as we are all conscious of these activities, and try compromise as
little as possible with the power. There is no single way to live
anarchist ideas, there is no single method. And if direct action,
various attacks, aren't to be considered as the only way to be
anarchist, they shouldn't be pushed away (along with those who carry
them) due to the fear of repression, that will come if it must, because
we have no intention to look at the crystal ball all of our lives. We
know that the justice often works randomly, and that no one can know in
advance the searches or the years of prison.
Anarchism was born in the midst of violence, direct actions, the
murdering of monarchs and leaders. It is a part of it no matter what the
most pacifist and cold-feeted can think. To assume our ideas in every
possible way is the least anarchists can do. And this includes to stop
being afraid of being anarchist, to hide our brochures in case of
repression, to speak loudly against it when something happens nearby,
and to hide one's ideas in the daily life. In short, it means to stop
wearing a mask, the average person's one, because of the fear to become
a target for the power (even if for some, this mask would be the one of
the Anarchist, which they are so quick to take off when trouble show its
face). What is the point to call oneself an anarchist if we are ashamed
of it, if we hide it ? How can one look themselves in the mirror when
they publicly denied what they pretended fight for ? One could be
anarchist in their house (and even there...), but would stop outside in
order to not have problems, like teenagers who would secretly draw
circled A's while being well-mannered students ? When we spread these
ideas, there will be some to take seriously what we say. That gives us a
responsibility to undertake, to be uncompromising with ourselves before
doing the same with others. Our ideas have consequences, and whatever we
may do, everyone contributing to the spreading of anarchist ideas should
have thought at their consequences, in order to be able to face them
when they'll come.
Rosa Blat
March 2018
[1] The entire text in french is readable at :
https://infokiosques.net/lire.php?id_article=486
[2] Ibsen, Henrik. An enemy of the people.
[3] Stirner, Max. The Unique and its property. 2017 (New translation)
available at :
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property
[4] Ibid.