27/06: Taking Freedom: A Short Response to Herod's "Getting Free" Part One
James Herod has finished a book on anarchist strategy called "Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods". An interesting read, it is perhaps the most current assembly strategy to date. New Mutualism, New Syndicalism, Bolo'bolo, Horizontalism, Libertarian Municipalism, Inclusive Democracy and so on have created a method of anarchist strategy placing emphasis on the neighborhood assembly with slight variations. Such attempts are a move towards the 21st century with an attempt for a viable theory towards mass participation. All appear to be answering the problems that developed when Unions stopped being the organizations of a mass movement and started becoming an institution for political power and worker materialism.
Herod talked of various similar ideas in his book and I figured I'd expose my past in this method of mass strategy. It has been a while since I looked into these theories, I spent a few years embracing these sort of ideas after I rejected some of my early thoughts on anarchy. During this period I started studying Marxism and how to create an anarchist structure that was inclusive of the majority of people. I created my own strategy of mutualism, called mutual communism. It was an economic treaty among individuals ment to pull workers into worker-owned co-ops and also pay for areas of work not generally considered work, such as housework or activism. It was ment to equalize all income based on the labor hour system, so even a corporate CEO could join, but he'd make the same as the janitor by choice. The strategy also had a treaty on development where a portion of everyone's money was ment to create growth within the mutual communist network. It was always ment to be a system receptive of individual whim and desire.
With my ideas on mutual communism, I attempted to practice them in a workplace dominated by drug-users, drug-dealers, thieves, anarchists, hipsters, good ole' boys and socialists in unity. I quickly noticed how everyone practiced some of my former views on illegalism and I adjusted the concept of mutual communism with ideas on conspiracy of egoists, which became my other ill-fated strategy of Insurrectionary syndicalism. The conspiracy would have to act autonomous of the system strategy and deny all connections between the two so the mutual communist network could grow and flourish without state intervention. Pretty much our tactic was focused on economic damage as resistance and empowerment. We didn't need to strike to make ends meet, we could take. Not much could be sabotaged in this warehouse other than the trucks and the line, but tons of commodities could be appropriated with little chance of being caught. My agitation consisted of insisting we could run the place without the bosses, because they were unnecessary and make shitloads more. I compared our bosses to big time drug dealers (they, in fact, were alcohol distributors) but far more stupid. We almost unionized with the IWW, but not because we wanted the IWW (I did though), we wanted to rip off the bosses and exploit whatever union we could to make the most money, fucking the boss and forcing the union to take or leave our participation. We could always ditch it for another. It was more powerful than any workplace I've ever attended. Open threats and hostility to the bosses, if it wasn't just an isolated case, we could've taken power.
The Mondragon corporation, which I talked briefly about while at the Division Street Autonomous Zone with Cindy Milstein, was an area I ment to also overcome, so I planned to democritize every portion of the system without any representative council. After I left Chicago, I debated a "Cyber-Leninist" while holding these views. He was rather receptive, as are many on the left towards these ideas. These ideas could be another way for Marxism, another way for anarchism, they are the new hope. They are "holistic" and talk about most major spheres of civilized life and offer democratic and anarchistic methods of resistance. My holistic strategy included areas dismissed by all other thinkers. I had developed my own views of property by taking LSD and seeing how utterly worthless stuff is. I agreed with the Ravnos Vampires (White Wolf Games) that all property was in flux and accepted egoism far more than Ben Tucker. My system was built to respect the possessions of its members, but secretly not that of dominant capitalism, waging a covert war of attrition on its economy, making our way the dominant system. The interchangability of "shadow economy" was attractive because of its double usage as both a synonym for alternative economy and black market.
Herod does a good job avoiding jargon and has taken his theory further than any other of these holistic strategies in an attempt to respect local social autonomy while furthering anarchist goals. Herod focuses very much on the "democratic" aspects of his strategy. Today I don't defend systems, but where Herod places emphasis, I think there is something to it. My above example didn't use a single formal method nor even collaboration, just a lot of shit talking about the bosses and stuff missing like crazy. We knew we could form a council, I had educated everyone in the workplace about their rights, but we were not in a situation where it was seen as necessary. And how unfun would it be to formalize a crime/labor syndicate when we had no reason for it? Everything ran smoothly without the interferance of democracy. However, I still emphasized a mass strategy and a system of economics so I disgarded it.
(more later..)
Herod talked of various similar ideas in his book and I figured I'd expose my past in this method of mass strategy. It has been a while since I looked into these theories, I spent a few years embracing these sort of ideas after I rejected some of my early thoughts on anarchy. During this period I started studying Marxism and how to create an anarchist structure that was inclusive of the majority of people. I created my own strategy of mutualism, called mutual communism. It was an economic treaty among individuals ment to pull workers into worker-owned co-ops and also pay for areas of work not generally considered work, such as housework or activism. It was ment to equalize all income based on the labor hour system, so even a corporate CEO could join, but he'd make the same as the janitor by choice. The strategy also had a treaty on development where a portion of everyone's money was ment to create growth within the mutual communist network. It was always ment to be a system receptive of individual whim and desire.
With my ideas on mutual communism, I attempted to practice them in a workplace dominated by drug-users, drug-dealers, thieves, anarchists, hipsters, good ole' boys and socialists in unity. I quickly noticed how everyone practiced some of my former views on illegalism and I adjusted the concept of mutual communism with ideas on conspiracy of egoists, which became my other ill-fated strategy of Insurrectionary syndicalism. The conspiracy would have to act autonomous of the system strategy and deny all connections between the two so the mutual communist network could grow and flourish without state intervention. Pretty much our tactic was focused on economic damage as resistance and empowerment. We didn't need to strike to make ends meet, we could take. Not much could be sabotaged in this warehouse other than the trucks and the line, but tons of commodities could be appropriated with little chance of being caught. My agitation consisted of insisting we could run the place without the bosses, because they were unnecessary and make shitloads more. I compared our bosses to big time drug dealers (they, in fact, were alcohol distributors) but far more stupid. We almost unionized with the IWW, but not because we wanted the IWW (I did though), we wanted to rip off the bosses and exploit whatever union we could to make the most money, fucking the boss and forcing the union to take or leave our participation. We could always ditch it for another. It was more powerful than any workplace I've ever attended. Open threats and hostility to the bosses, if it wasn't just an isolated case, we could've taken power.
The Mondragon corporation, which I talked briefly about while at the Division Street Autonomous Zone with Cindy Milstein, was an area I ment to also overcome, so I planned to democritize every portion of the system without any representative council. After I left Chicago, I debated a "Cyber-Leninist" while holding these views. He was rather receptive, as are many on the left towards these ideas. These ideas could be another way for Marxism, another way for anarchism, they are the new hope. They are "holistic" and talk about most major spheres of civilized life and offer democratic and anarchistic methods of resistance. My holistic strategy included areas dismissed by all other thinkers. I had developed my own views of property by taking LSD and seeing how utterly worthless stuff is. I agreed with the Ravnos Vampires (White Wolf Games) that all property was in flux and accepted egoism far more than Ben Tucker. My system was built to respect the possessions of its members, but secretly not that of dominant capitalism, waging a covert war of attrition on its economy, making our way the dominant system. The interchangability of "shadow economy" was attractive because of its double usage as both a synonym for alternative economy and black market.
Herod does a good job avoiding jargon and has taken his theory further than any other of these holistic strategies in an attempt to respect local social autonomy while furthering anarchist goals. Herod focuses very much on the "democratic" aspects of his strategy. Today I don't defend systems, but where Herod places emphasis, I think there is something to it. My above example didn't use a single formal method nor even collaboration, just a lot of shit talking about the bosses and stuff missing like crazy. We knew we could form a council, I had educated everyone in the workplace about their rights, but we were not in a situation where it was seen as necessary. And how unfun would it be to formalize a crime/labor syndicate when we had no reason for it? Everything ran smoothly without the interferance of democracy. However, I still emphasized a mass strategy and a system of economics so I disgarded it.
(more later..)
