Probably the number one mistake I see pro-market folks make when arguing with conventional anarchists is not recognizing that usually what they most desperately want is secure housing & food with as little labor as possible. Complex economic good provision is not even in scope.
I regularly see middle class libertarians being like "but you can't coordinate an economy with..." when the absolute utopia of someone constantly fatigued by minimum wage jobs is a squat the cops won't threaten and foodstamps that don't depend on endless capricious bureaucracy.
Like explain to an anarchist the complexity of the supply chain involved in making a wifi router and what they hear is "choose between not constantly being abused + worked to the bone to keep housing and food OR having wifi" and literally everyone is gonna choose the former.
When I handwave right out of the gate "sure, everyone should have basic necessities like housing and food" most anarchists consider any economic particulars beyond that (like whether markets are used to coordinate complex production) to be completely anodyne and esoteric.
While leftists often vastly misconstrue the class composition of libertarian rank & file, this IS a place where libertarian arguments often come from a place of ignorant privilege.
And this comes down to one's experience of precarity, etc. Are you constantly tired?
The middle class kid relates to rent & food as kind of rounding errors or a place for indulgence.
The kid in precarity sees them as a site of constant pain and looming fear.
The middle class kid lives entirely in the "wild stretch goal" space of the precariat.
This is the source of a lot of currents in anarchist politics. If the most fanciful utopia you can imagine is GETTING TO REST, then who the fuck cares if that means sagging old rotten walls, compost toilets, and chicken shit instead of having gadgets.
Anarcho-communism works every single day in thousands of land projects and squats around the world.
"works"
In the sense that it provides people with an island of utopia -- the capacity to actually rest, not be shouted at by a boss, maybe even hang out with friends.
That such schemes are completely incapable of scaling up efficiently in economic complexity to handle the mutation, production and distribution of wifi routers etc is not apparent and *not concerning.* Having such toys is a very distant *stretch goal* to most folks.
Now of course I think markets are incredibly important, incredibly necessary. But that's because I recognize the "stretch goals" are necessities too, that we'll choke and stifle without the ability to do nerdy stuff beyond sleep, eat, fuck, gossip on some subsistence farm.
But the average person just wants to be able to catch up on sleep for the first time in decades. The average person has a hard time seeing beyond the far-out-there absurd dream of not having a boss yell at you and threaten to make you homeless by week's end.
Market participation doesn't have to come -- like it does under capitalism -- through the violent removal of other options. It can be motivated by nerdy aspirations seeking useful efficient tools for building, but today? Most only engage cuz precarity has a knife to their throat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's weird to be decades into libertarians discovering left market anarchists and still fielding these kinds of critiques. Anarchism isn't "remove the state and whatever might come is good" it's a deep critique of power and thus *obliges* cultural and institutional changes.
Yes, we frequently highlight the systematic and dispersed impact of sustained state violence on shaping our present capitalist world and its economic and social norms. But we are not "come what may" advocates. As Charles emphasized endlessly: *we* are the market. We get choices.
So libertarians tend to miss that we are obliged not only to rip out the continued impacts of state violence that prop up bosses, corporations, etc, but also to work to *undo* the centuries of distortions and lasting impact upon the distributions and *norms* of our society.
"Lifestyle anarchism" continues to signify whatever one personally finds frustratingly illegible about a *movement* rather than a *Party.*
You don't know the local prison support crew? Then they're lifestylists. You don't get why some friends are brewing kombucha? Lifestylists!
Movements are fluid ecosystems. They grow projects & networks that defy easy mapping. They accrue tacit knowledge from praxis & argumentation that can't be codified into a single FAQ or onboarding document.
This is frustrating to newbies and infuriating to would-be bureaucrats.
Pretty much no one in the entire fucking history of the anarchist movement said "let's just squat and ride bikes; fuck all struggle and strategy." You're tilting at a crimethinc zine that doesn't even really exist and that they repudiate with their every publication for decades.
Love the inane "trump voters are just a product of material conditions" re-tread of 2016's "it's just economic anxiety." Same sort of reactionaries saying it, but they've swapped from identifying as libs to marxists.
People love Trump because 1) our epistemic ecosystems are toxic sludge, 2) many people have intense investments in the (often non-material) benefits of patriarchy and racism, 3) fear of ratcheting cancelation has scared every type of amoral bastard into mobilizing together...
4) transphobia is intense and rabidly popular rn as a blowback to progress, 5) mild personal inconveniences and changes to every day life during COVID radicalized people for life, 6) the left keeps pratfalling with horrifically bad analysis, and yes 7) inflation sucks.
Like don't get me wrong, I have my critiques and deviances from some of the movement's tendencies, but for better or worse modern anarchism is a mixture of radical feminism, quaker consensus, fourth generation warfare theory, 70s anthropology, and some of the autonomists.
It's cringe to look at direct action cells and be like "ah yes, I know this, Bakuninist terrorism." Stirner is more of an online meme than a popular influence. Virtually no one reads Nietzsche and Aragorn said he was of zero inspiration to his attempt to make "nihilism" a thing.
Well yeah, obviously. *Specific* revolutions will be won. Insurgencies will erode the ability of power everywhere to function. Prefigurative experimentation will spread more liberatory norms. Technologies will be contested and shifted.
Our forever walk towards anarchy -- as Malatesta described it -- is not a single hop on a single day. It's a gradual process of erosion and catalyzing strength.
Such evolution can be violent and punctuated, but there is no magical day after which we finish and rest.
When I was a young anarchist in the 90s and early 00s, the entire movement used "After The Revolution" as an ironic meme to emphasize the absurdity and the ignorance of anyone in that frame. We were also steadfastly hostile to nihilism. Because progress is possible without magic.
An underexamined problem is that the most noxious reactionary shit emerges in radical spaces during the downturn.
2008-20010 was horrible. 2015-2018 was likewise the worst. Say what you will about the grifters and monsters flooding in during the peaks, the lean years are nasty. t.co/WKGmJQ8aeu
When the tide comes in there's a feeding frenzy, everyone eats well but new monsters arrive. Then the new monsters are slowly and painfully eliminated and the children spawned mature. Then there's no resources, contests feel zero-sum, and power floods into non-radical lefty shit.
Like we got nihilists at the bottom of the first downturn during Obama's ascension, and tankies at the bottom of the last one, when Bernie became a thing.
These were both permanent massive injuries to the struggle for liberation that continue to poison shit.