Aquarius: Dadaism

Dadaism is a cultural movement that began in Zurich, Switzerland, during World War I and peaked from 1916 to 1922.  The movement primarily involved visual arts, literature, poetry, art manifestoes, art theory, theatre, and graphic design, and concentrated its anti-war politics through a rejection of the prevailing standards in art through anti-art cultural works. Its purpose was to ridicule what its participants considered to be the meaninglessness of the modern world. In addition to being anti-war, dada was also anti-bourgeois and anarchist in nature.  

Women make natural anarchists and revolutionaries because they’ve always been second-class citizens, kinda having had to claw their way up. I mean, who made up all the rules in the culture? Men - white male corporate society. So why wouldn’t a woman want to rebel against that?
—  Kim Gordan -Sonic Youth

amadeus-rhapsody  asked:

Advice on creating an anarchist society? I'm trying to avoid a "chaos," and aiming for an actual system based off anarchy standards.

Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is a political belief system which means “without rule”. No person rules over another. Pure anarchy would be complete equality of political power. This political power comes in the form of a state, andbecause its effects are more negative than positive it shouldn’t exist.

In 1875, Henry Thomas Buckle wrote “no great political improvement, no great reform, either legislative or executive, has ever been originated in any country by its rulers.”

George Woodcock wrote that anarchism rather that being a mere doctrine of politics is essentially concerned with fundamental questions of a moral nature.

Anarchists recognize that power is both, definite and necessary, but there’s a distinction between social power and political power. If there are people there will be subtle forces of social control, but this control shouldn’t contain, or being based on, coercion. Coercion is what turns social forces into political power.

To Laurence Lowell anarchists are essentially anti-authoritarian; any kind of authority of political nature should be abolished. Lowell states the definition of authority by anarchists which is “power of coercion of one person over another”. Now, the authority found on moral values, ideas and aesthetic inspiration is not the same as political or religious authority.

The misconception that anarchy is synonymous of breakdown the law and order comes from C. Northcote Parkinson “anarchy, if it can be termed a form of rule, means the refusal of a large number to be ruled at all.” The abolition of any kind of social structure, or organization, is not what anarchists advocate.

There are two lines in anarchism, individualism and collectivism. While the first one maintains that any kind of conscious organization of society is to be avoided at all costs, the second one recognizes, along with some individualists, that some social machinery is necessary. One of the aspects that differs our existing social machinery from an anarchist social machinery is administration, social organizations on an anarchist society are to be free and rising spontaneously from the natural social disposition of men.

The same goes with conflict and its resolutions; anarchism doesn’t suppose that all people will live in harmony, the settlement of conflicts should arise from people involved and there shouldn’t be an external force imposing said settlement.

The idea of freedom to anarchy begins with the freedom of people, because man is by nature a free being. As Thoreau wrote “without the idea of a free man, the anarchist idea falls to the ground: because the future society cannot exist, or its beginnings be nurtured, without him.” In modern society freedom, for anarchism, has become a central point of retaining one’s identity. Proudhon noted that there’s a basic conflict between the interests of an individual and the interests of the mass. The same author also tells us that mass never knows where it is going, and is individual action the one that should lead society, as Thoreau wrote “when we say, people can become free only by will, only by acts of freedom, we are not juggling words. We mean that freedom is not merely the absence of restrictions – it is responsibility, choice, and the free assumption of social obligations.”

How to accomplish freedom? Without regard to the “crippling destructive principles of power, monopoly-property and war” as Wieck pointed out. Some revolutionary, most revolutionary, ideologies have given certain individuals power to organize institutions, in anarchism that wouldn’t happen, because as soon as individuals arise as leaders, freedom would be lost.

A concept that has been linked to anarchism is revolution. From an anarchist approach, revolution shouldn’t be a political phenomenon (overthrowing a government only to be replaced by another one). Centralization, both political and economical, shouldn’t exist in an anarchist society. The same applies to war.

Anarchism isn’t the same as chaos, and isn’t a utopia either. Anarchism recognizes that there will always be thirst for power among men, as Plato pointed out.

Anarchism doesn’t overturn the state by force and/or violence; it rejects both of them as elements of maintaining social order.

Those are some foundations of anarchism. There are more, and there are also more authors to check when writing an anarchist society.

When creating an anarchist society keep in mind

  • Time for how long your society has existed?
  • History has it always been an anarchist society or there was a different system before? If there was a different system before anarchism, what was it and how it changed?
  • Population size of your population, a big population isn’t the same as a small population.
  • Resources access, distribution.
  • World Void is your anarchist society alone on this vast world as some books, especially YA books, have made their societies, or there are other societies, countries and continents? If there are, what kind of system do they have and how relations are being carried, if there are any, among them? The same goes for your society being under attack, how do they react?
  • Remove the idea that anarchy is chaos. It isn’t.
  • The most important thing to keep in mind when writing about this, is how your population will behave? Do they know they live in an anarchist society, because there are other societies to make the contrast? What if someone, or a group, wants to achieve political or economical power?
  • Every political system has pros and cons
  • What about racism, sexism, gender roles, homophobia in your anarchist society? The same with work and education. 
  • People have written about different political systems letting them control the plot (restart democracy, start a revolution, overthrow a tiranny). There are stories where the political system isn’t even mentioned, just assumed, and it remains the same after the story. You have to decide if you are letting anarchism take control over the plot, or it will be just a political setting for a different plot.

Good luck (:


Women make natural anarchists and revolutionaries, because they’ve always been second-class citizens, kinda having had to claw their way up.” Gordon nods as I read back her quote: “I mean, who made up all the rules in the culture? Men—white male corporate society. So why wouldn’t a woman want to rebel against that?
—  Kim Gordon, talking to ELLE, April 2013

“Women make natural anarchists and revolutionaries because they’ve always been second-class citizens, kinda having had to claw their way up. I mean, who made up all the rules in the culture? Men - white male corporate society. So why wouldn’t a woman want to rebel against that?”

———————————————–Kim Gordon

The Ascension of Bernie Sanders and the Dawn of Orwellian Entitlement Culture

If a person must work for a period of months simply to pay taxes what term would adequately describe the condition?

Indentured servitude maybe? But even then there is typically a formal agreement that an individual has signed.

Slavery is the term and it is what the entitlement culture demands.

Voluntaryists and market anarchists understand the nature of the dynamics at play. It is also what I believe makes voluntaryists characteristically inclusive.

For all of the agitation and rhetoric meant to divide us along social fault lines, a person interested in the free market is inherently interested in the freedom of all people. We are inherently interested in peace because the war machine consumes us.

Without financially literate people participating in the economy trade suffers and wealth is destroyed. The more people the state can oppress economically the less opportunity we all have. The growth of a dependent class creates the ostensible motive to confiscate the wealth of the people. If money is power the corporatists seek to concentrate it in themselves.

I want every person possible to be my customer. Conversely I want to be theirs.

I want everyone in every state-run inner city concentration camp to have a sound education.

I want them to have the opportunity to achieve economic escape velocity from a nanny state which farms and victimizes them in various industrial complexes. Their victimization enables my victimization at the hands of state institutions. We as subjects have mutual interest.

The state does not want liberation and that is what is disguised with the abstract idea of pervasive racism permeating our culture. It promotes fear and division. The corporatist propaganda machine builds up herculean straw men for the state to do battle with.

It is the terrorist and the self-styled savior.

The state encourages entitlement and dependence because its power to ensnare all people is derived from this evil.

Rather than simply hope for a deep-seated human goodness to overcome dominating and violent behavior, anarchists argue that traits like compassion, independence, and a sense of solidarity must be cultivated through properly facilitating environments. This must take place in wider society (workplace, neighborhoods, etc.) for broader changes to occur, but as Bakunin notes, the ‘environment that [nourishes] and [raises]’ a person, like formal education in youth, is of particular importance in determining subsequent social attitudes and behavior (Maximoff, 1953, p.153)*. If a child is to grow to value cooperation and solidarity with others, then she must practice cooperation rather than institutionalized competition with her peers. If a child is to grow to challenge received truths and think for herself as an adult, then she must, while young, learn in a way that encourages her to practice individual inquiry and challenge authority.

Justin Mueller, “Anarchism, the State, and the Role of Education,” appearing in Robert H. Haworth’s Anarchist Pedagogies: Collective Actions, Theories, and Critical Reflections on Education (2012)

*Bakunin quote from G.P. Maximoff’s The political philosophy of Bakunin. New York: The Free Press (1953).

i used 2 think that ppl who called themselfs “communist” or “anarchist” would naturally have skepticism for islamophobic & antisemitic tropes but that perception has been totally eroded by my experience. 

i used 2 think that ppl who called themselfs “communist” or “anarchist” would recognize genocide apologia & white supremacist-aligned ethnic nationalism when they saw it but that too has been totally eroded by my experience. 

shit, i’ve seen communist terfs. thats fucking wild

like i have zero faith in people just based on sharing a label w/ me cuz like… i cant actually count on them to not be antisemitic or islamophobic or xenophobic or genocide apologists or, in fact, just being totally spiteful towards the realities of poor people. i guess im just lowering my levels of trust & shit towards people based on what ultimately is actually pretty shallow grounds.