For fourteen years I've listened to local (A)s bash each other in the harshest terms while still aligning against threats and rapists.

And believe it or not there's a path that doesn't involve either antifascists turning into liberal careerists or insurrectos embracing ecofash.
Professionalized antifascist groups *can* -- because they have serious security risks involving actual murderous prison nazis -- lean into formal organization to the point of reproducing hierarchy and haughtily give marching orders while withholding information. That's fair.
Additionally the current wave of pop antifa -- while a desperate strategy to build cover in the face of looming mass repression -- *has* made for some weird implicit bedfellows, some distraction from radical action, and promoted careerist liberals who will shy from some shit.
But at the same time it's true that spaces that fetishize attack and criminality have provided a lot of cover to reactionary trash over the years. Covered up for abusers because they were militant, tolerated ecofascists and "national anarchists", focused on edge over strategy.
Immediatism and the notion that "pure negation" is a politic sometimes make for shitty strategies and poorly thought out actions, which get papered over because none of us feel like fighting over someone who at least showed up and acted. This too can be a failure mode.
I've been listening to antifa and insurrectos whine about the other camp for so many fucking years, and I've always agreed that there are valid critiques of both. But like, jesus, this is a stupid split mostly reinforced by festering grudges rather than cleareyed communication.
With the state turning its eye on fascists, utilizing the public research of antifascists, and with establishment libs embracing certain pop antifa figures who dance with respectability there is a danger of "antifa" betraying radical struggle. But it doesn't have to be the case.
Similarly there's a risk of reactionary elements using this momentary shift in the alignment of the establishment to push anti-antifa narratives in insurrecto spaces, to circle wagons again and provide cover for abhorrent entryism. But again this doesn't have to be the case.
There's space in anarchism for secretive formal groups, public respectability cover providers, and informal militants. There are no singular magic strategic bullets.

My hope, is that every camp remembers to keep their preferred strategy without doing grave harm to the others.
This means not throwing hardline militants under the bus when it's not perfectly opportune for your respectability narrative.

It also means recognizing the threat models and inherent operating constraints of formal groups and public figures.
I assure you, it's possible to push back on national narratives to defend anarchists from repression without doing powerpoints for the FBI. It's also possible to live a life of armed joy without defensively going to bat for literally any shitbag or irresponsible act.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with William Gillis 🏴

William Gillis 🏴 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rechelon

14 Jan
The FBI arrests local cops surprisingly frequently, but this often looks more like a genteel gang applying pressure on a trashy gang than anything to cheer. Let me give an example from the 2008 RNC, and how the FBI pressured the local cops to raid/torture/etc us for them...
Ramsey County sheriff Bob Fletcher has been in the, ah, news recently, but back in 2008 he was the arch villain of the RNC protests, raiding all my "co-conspirators," doing interrogations where he acted like he was on 24, and screaming to the media about terrorism.
Because Fletcher is a quintessential dipshit chud you may be tempted to believe this was all him going off half-cocked. Indeed this became kinda the media narrative, insofar as they pushed back on him at all.

The reality however is more that Fletcher was a useful tool to the FBI
Read 10 tweets
13 Jan
When it comes to state action against the chuds Anarchists broadly seem caught in a bit of a bind between 1) treating the state just like any other shitty gang in conflict with another shitty gang, and 2) emphasizing the importance of "legitimacy" and legal precedent.
Obviously it's possible to go too far in either direction. With #1 you can go "literally anything the state gang does to smash the chud gang is good" whereas with #2 folks can get pulled into de facto liberalism, getting wrapped up in the state's ostensible legal logic.
What's kinda amusing is that it's often been insurrectos who've emphasized the importance of state legality and legitimacy, whereas it's often been more... anarcho-DSA types who've taken more fervently to "crush the chuds by any means!"
Read 5 tweets
12 Jan
While I hate nazis more—since nazis would make our world a fractal prison to put all existing prisons to shame—putting nazis in prison doesn't rehabilitate them, it merely shits their location (which can be strategic or not), but building the prison system can't build liberation.
Cops and fascists fighting each other is a case of two evil bad gangs fighting each other, you can only hope they kidnap and kill each other. But instead often they end up functionally collaborating (eg prison wardens work with nazi gangs to keep prisons divided).
Talk of "precedent" within the context of liberal statism is a particular thing. It can cut towards hoping the state convicts a nazi of murder (lest other nazis feel emboldened) but it can also cut *against* state action that risks emboldening the state against anarchists.
Read 6 tweets
8 Jan
> "Groups identifying with Antifa movements haven't engaged in any armed insurrection."

Ehhhhhhhh.

I mean, I guess to be fair, before 2017 there were frequently deep divides between insurrectos & antifascists in the anarchist scene. With insurrectos deriding antifa as liberals.
Gilles Dauve's "When Insurrections Die" is a good representation of many pieces tending to view antifascism as a defense of the liberal order, helping do the state's work for them to keep capitalism stable against the threat of civil war by weeding out threats to order.
I want to be clear that while I agree liberal antifascism can be annoying as hell, and there's important failure modes to be always aware of in this direction, I've always sided harder with my antifascist friends than my insurrecto friends on this.
Read 12 tweets
7 Jan
Everyone's fighting over comparisons of the summer uprising to the winter coup, how far either got, etc.

I think you can praise the uprising for tagging shit outside the white house, while recognizing the psycho-geography of DC's institutions of power make this quite different.
It is absolutely the case that if the uprising had tried to storm the capitol it would have been met with live ammo.

But *also* the uprising would have focused on destroying/damaging the building rather than selfies and attempts to citizens arrest congress members.
The plain truth of the matter is politicians don't care about some fires set in the streets blocks away from their fortress as much as they do men with guns forcing them to flee out of the building.
Read 8 tweets
20 Dec 20
Here are the major fault lines of the left + anarchism as I see them:

The question of value. How do we define what we're in favor of?

The question of efficacy. Are we pursuing goals or stoking virtues?

The question of theory. Do we already know enough and just need action?
The first question is really all over the place, are we just default supporting any underdog in any situation? Are we fighting for things like freedom and equality and what very different concepts can those terms stand for? "Diversity"? "Anti-totalitarianism"? "Wildness"? Etc.
The 2nd question is basically which of the three main approaches to ethics are we utilizing: are we seeking good consequences (liberation), trying to stoke personal virtues ('wildness' 'revenge' etc), or are we about a set of rules about behavior (see social justice card playing)
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!