Schlagwort-Archive: ENGLISH

When, if not now?

Translation of Wann, wenn nicht jetzt? done as part of the brochure „Brûler les foyers du virus technologique. De la nécessité de couper les réseaux de la domination“ in solidarity with Boris, published on Act For Freedom Now!


In recent years, all the devices around us have begun to take on a life of their own. Modern televisions record the conversations of those around them, modern refrigerators do the stock management and even modern ovens are no longer limited to being an electric fireplace: they have internet interfaces that are supposed to enable them to be switched on from “on the road” and through which they exchange data with their owners and other curious people at will. With smartphones, most people have long since bugged themselves voluntarily and in all their movements. So it’s hardly surprising that more than a few people are also willingly taking Amazon’s Alexa spying program into their homes. And while “technology enthusiasts” are excitedly building their “smart home” cage, the state and a handful of technology companies have even more extensive plans and visions. Voluntary (self-)surveillance within one’s own four walls was yesterday: the “smart city” of today and tomorrow includes an impressive repertoire of sensor technologies to not only meticulously record and monitor who is where and with whom, but also to control the movements and actions of the city’s inhabitants with subtle and less subtle methods, to direct and manipulate them. On closer inspection, this also seems bitterly necessary, because in the increasingly misanthropic environments of today’s cities, in which the highest priority is given to the transport of human livestock to offices, shops and factories, as well as to the transport of goods to satisfy false needs, any subversive potential must be silenced, or better yet, integrated into this illusion of life before it spreads like an epidemic and causes irreparable damage to this beautiful, perfect world.

But how can an entire city be controlled? Where conventional methods of architecture, police work, psychiatry, prison society, schools, education, etc. reach their limits, information technology opens up new, previously unknown possibilities. And the controlled? They let themselves be sold (literally) as progress (which perhaps it is, but there is nothing inherently positive about progress), as a solution to their problems. Isn’t it convenient that Google Maps always shows you the fastest way to work? Isn’t it pleasant to use that e-scooter for the last bit of the way home, which is so conveniently on my way? And what about paying? Contactless payment in installments with your smartphone, splitting the bill via Paypal, and it doesn’t even occur to you to simply carry your purchases back out to the entrance and take to your heels. Who would think of such an idea with all the cameras?

Most of these “offers” are only possible if data can be exchanged everywhere and at any time. How else would Google know exactly where the traffic is congested, how would the far too many (but ultimately quite few) e-scooters get to where their customers are waiting for them? How should it be ensured that the necessary credit or credit line is available on the account for a payment transaction? That’s right: all this only works if the internet is available everywhere. And if I already have access to the Internet, I might as well take advantage of all the other services cyberspace has to offer. Never again do I have to waste my time. When I take the subway to work, it doesn’t cost me any more time: I can read the news, stream the latest episode of my favourite series, keep in touch with my friends via Whatsapp, take pictures for Instagram, and so on. And because it’s so easy, I never have to feel bored again. Every free minute I can look at my smartphone instead of getting lost in my thoughts. Sometimes, looking at this device even seems more exciting to me than a contact that takes place here, in reality – to touch, so to speak. Let’s not let boredom arise. But when I look back at the end of the day and see what remains of all this, it is only the emptiness that this activity leaves behind as an end in itself. I may not have felt boredom, but instead I have led a rather boring life. My life has become the epitome of a controlled existence. My actions have not only become predictable, they are no longer even mine. Is this what I once dreamed of my life to be? Working all day and watching Netflix or porn to unwind? A normality that is only interrupted by the release of dopamine on the occasion of incoming push notifications? But on a regular basis, sometimes even every minute …

Even the most enthusiastic advocates of the new “always-online” ideology have realised that this way of life cannot be the “real thing”. “Digital Detox” is one of the latest trends from Silicon Valley and refers to a kind of “holiday” from the use of all the consequently toxic devices. For a few days, a week or sometimes even a month, overworked users are supposed to take a break from smartphone and computer use and thus detoxify their bodies and minds from all the technological junk. But why take the poison in the first place? While governments, technology companies and their disciples are still experimenting with the right dose of this digital poison, for all the others the main question is: why should I let this poison be administered?

After all, none of this is my vision. And yet, looking around, I can clearly see the ways in which this vision has determined and will change my life today and in the (near) future. Even if I don’t carry around my own bug with the practical touch display, thanks to countless cameras and other sensors I can hardly take a step in this city any more without where I am going being recorded. Even if I haven’t welcomed the smartphone-independent private spying program “Alexa” into my home, don’t own any “smart” ovens, TVs, fridges, etc., it’s enough that my neighbour or my friends own such devices. Anyone who allows such a device to spy on their environment is, of course, also enabling them to monitor not only themselves but others as well. The technocrats’ calculation works: once they have managed to get a certain amount of spying devices into circulation, they are able to control all people, regardless of whether they (willingly) share their vision or not. In my eyes, this point has been long since passed. Faster and faster internet connections, better and better wireless networks have in the last few years led to an increase in the number of devices (and objects) spying on us: from streetlights to ovens. Everything seems to have eyes and ears these days. And the whole thing has only just begun. Today, those who want to or are not paying attention can have their heartbeat and other vital parameters monitored by watches and bracelets. In the future, at least according to the textile industry, our clothes will do it all by themselves. And that is just one example of how the number of things that spy on us will explode. Conventional wireless networks, which today mainly supply people’s smartphones with internet, are no longer sufficient. They are too slow and cannot address enough devices simultaneously.

That’s the reason for the development of 5G, but also why tech bigwigs like Elon Musk (the nutcase who wants to colonise Mars to make humanity a “transplanetary species” – no joke, that’s his motivation!) or Amazon boss Bezos and others are working on launching thousands of satellites into space to provide high-speed global internet coverage – and presumably spy on us in other ways as well. Several hundred of these space peeping toms are already watching us.

What some want to realise with satellites in space, others are planning with a terrestrial radio network on the ground. As a new mobile radio standard, 5G is supposed to bring faster internet for a multitude of devices. For example, 5G should be able to address up to around 100 billion mobile devices at the same time. That is an average of 12.5 devices per person walking the earth. And they should all be able to exchange data at 50 MBit/s to 2 GBit/s. Why? The pretence that the architects of our technological prison are concerned with bringing us the freedom and possibilities of fast internet and the blessings of technology does not fool us. If the tech industry’s masters were so concerned with our well-being, how is it that during the standardisation process of 5G, for example, as well as since the introduction of a nationwide wireless network, all health concerns have simply been pushed aside? Instead, those who have raised and continue to raise health concerns have been and continue to be called conspiracy theorists, even though none of the proponents of wireless networks has yet been able to prove (how could they?!) that they are not harmful. While many countries have constantly increased the limits for radio wave exposure in order to pave the way for new technologies that have been able to comply with them thanks to these adjustments, one must at the same time ask oneself why such limits exist at all if everyone seems to be so convinced that radio technology does not cause any health hazards. What is actually a minor matter for me (because worse than any health impact of radio waves – for me this is only a minor factor in the context of the harmfulness of civilisation – is the social impacts of their technology), nevertheless seems to be excellent proof of how indifferent the actors who are pushing so hard for 5G expansion and the expansion of the mobile network or a satellite communication network really are to the well-being of people, which they otherwise place so much emphasis on.

The irony of it all – I probably would never have been able to present it so succinctly without the developments of the last few weeks – reveals itself particularly where the 5G expansion is currently being pushed forward under the pretext of a “war” against the pandemic. While people are being locked up at home in the name of their own or an almost fascist-like “public health”, new radio transmitters are being erected in their neighbourhood, the influence of which on health must at least be considered unknown and which some medical experts warn against as weakening the immune system. With the more or less blatant aim of making the confinement more “bearable”, so to speak, and thus maintainable, because those who are pacified by (free) Netflix and porn offers, who are in this way increasingly alienated from their actual needs and desires and forced into the violent norms of a society of production and reproduction, are much less likely to rebel against curfews, contact bans and quarantines. “The Revolution will not be televised”, unfortunately, remains an all too true statement of an otherwise, in my opinion, far too overrated period. If classic television has now been extended by some ridiculous interaction possibilities through commenting and rating functions, this only perfects the pacifying function of the whole thing. If social media trollings, angry posting and even “subversive” films and TV shows serve to express one’s displeasure, why should people even take to the streets the anger that we are fed with a ridiculous illusion of freedom? Haven’t we already become part of this illusion?

Well, the good news is that many people seem to be becoming aware of this situation, perhaps they have always been aware of it, but now many seem to no longer want to be silent, no longer want to be pushed around and choose to attack instead of shouting out their disagreement into the infinite spheres of the digital where it eventually dies away (unheard). Almost daily I receive news that somewhere in the world a 5G radio mast, or any radio mast at all, has been torched, blown up, felled or otherwise destroyed. And even if the (democratic) press either tries to keep quiet about these attacks or to slander them as the work of some nutcase – what does that mean, I’d rather be considered a nutcase or a lunatic than be considered “normal” in this world – it is no longer possible to hide the fact that this is the uncompromising opposition of people who no longer want to let their lives be determined by states, companies or anyone else. Those who are tired of producing and reproducing, who are tired of being tamed, who want to live instead of vegetating.

“Every society […] will have its fringes, and on the fringes of every society, heroic and restless vagabonds will wander, with their wild and untouched thoughts, only able to live by preparing ever new and terrible outbreaks of rebellion! I shall be among them!” – Renzo Novatore

Rebellion in times of the curfew

Translation of Rebellion in Zeiten der Ausgangssperre.


We are in a situation that is absolutely new to us. Our freedoms are reduced to a minimum, similar to wartimes or imprisonment. Only this time the “enemy” is invisible and our prison is our home. Catastrophes, state of emergency, curfew, pandemic, media bombardment, panic, insecurity and isolation … It’s not about minimizing or assessing the deadly consequences of the coronavirus – on a medical level I cannot judge this. But I want to formulate a critique of the authoritarian formation taking place, i.e. the state of war declared by the state and the consequences this has for us and society. While every bill and every restriction is waved through with reference to the relevant experts and no one can predict what the situation might look like in a week, we don’t need experts to know that in times of crisis and war the state of emergency becomes the normality way too fast (you remember the “war on terror” or the “refugee crisis”?)

The social misery: lonely, digital and obedient

In the always-on society, the speed and presence of the news has reached a new level. Live updates show us the number of infected people. Our insecurity grows faster … Fear of being infected, of the sick, of the fellow human being, of the neighbour. Meanwhile, politicians are positioning themselves on the front line in the war against the enemy, assuring us that they know what is best. “Stay home! Stay satisfied” this is all we have to do. Prove unity and follow the orders because after all, now is “the wrong time for critique”. And, lo and behold, we find ourselves in a totalitarian scenario of control. You shouldn’t leave the house and should even report anyone who doesn’t stick to the orders. The good citizen becomes aware of his responsibility and calls the cops when he suspects that the neighbours are having a party. In the meantime the use of internet is rising to new heights. As we are no longer allowed to venture out into the world around us, we are being made to believe that there is another world we can escape in: the digital world. Instead of moving and  taking care of your social relations, life gets transposed into the digital world. Instead of going out and meeting friends, you can chat, watch series, make your home your office, get delivered everything in front of your door, watch porn, publish your critique and argue about something or just play games on the internet. In the digital intoxication, life becomes artificial and alienated. Ultimately we lose any possibility of changing anything about the reality around us. Stressed out, underutilized, overwhelmed and with square eyes bumming around within your own four walls – is this the future? Permanently locked in and scared from new horror-news. The number of those who decide themselves to put an end to such a life generally increases. As does the interpersonal and domestic violence which is mostly exercised by men against women.

Towards a permanent open-air prison

While I am writing this text, a police car is driving around in the parallel streets with speakers loudly announcing that one should stay at home. At the same time, some of the leading politicians sit down together and discuss how the curfew can be adapted nationwide. On the roof of a neighbouring house there is radio mast which collects the movement and contact data of all mobile phones in its radius. The companies Telekom and Vodafone will then pass this on so that can be analysed with whom infected persons have probably had contact and to what extent the exit restrictions are being observed. In a few days, the state will probably turn the curfew into an outright ban and abolish rights such as the secrecy of correspondence and the integrity of the home. All to examine who has contact with whom and where, who lives where and is where. The state subjects get categorized, divided and ordered or separated. Furthermore, under the call for total obedience, a global militarization of society is being achieved that has never existed before like this. Closed borders, soldiers preparing for action on the streets, prohibition of any gathering of people and helicopters searching for them with thermal imaging cameras. The fact that China is used as a model state in the fight against the epidemic shows in which direction the journey goes: drones flying above our heads, giving us orders, barcodes on our smartphones which allow us to go to the supermarket or force us into quarantine based on some incomprehensible algorithms, the lockdown of entire cities and checkpoints on every corner. The suggestion of one “expert” in Italy that people in quarantine should also be given electronic shackles to ensure that they do not leave the house, illustrates that the city has now been turned increasingly into an open-air prison and that the methods of discipline, control, administration, punishment and monitoring are applied to all citizens. Some are now content to wait for this brief period of restriction to pass and try to find amusement online. They demonstrate not only that freedom is worth nothing to them, but they also don’t understand that this condition will last more than a few days.

Normality is the real crisis

From the perspective of the ruling class it makes no sense to maintain this state of emergency for only two weeks. If you want to freeze society to stop a virus, it has to be for at least one year from a virological point of view. The consequences will be enormous even if the restrictions will afterwards be relaxed or lifted. Once you live lonely, digital and obedient, you will train yourself to behave in this way. Just a few months ago we saw protests and uprisings exploding globally, but the means of counterinsurgency and social stupidity will cause deep scars. Because those who live lonely and digital also let themselves be robbed of their possibilities and tools to discuss, revolt and self-organize with their friends. The state forbids us any social life while it puts itself in the role of protector of life and limb. But we know that it is the state and its industries that constantly kills, that disseminates wars all over the world, that lets refugees die at the borders and that for hundreds of years has been destroying and exploiting the earth. The state pretends to be the guardian of the common good, but actually it wants us to be work slaves and obedient soldiers – producing profits for its polluting industry and willing to die in its wars. First and foremost the state protects the rich and if in this economic crisis someone thinks of just taking from them what he or she lacks, the public servants will not hesitate to shoot the looters and thieves. Capitalism and the state need crises and states of emergency to increase and strengthen their power over us. The virus is not the reason, but the trigger. The state is calling on us to take our responsibility. But it forbids us to self-organize, to meet and to help each other. We are supposed to sit in front of the screen and say “yes” and “amen”. But when we abandon the role of subject, it declares war on us. If the state wants to control and prevent any of our movements and relations, we have to find ways to move and meet despite all of this. If we lack the essentials of life, we have to take it from where it exists in abundance. When we are separated from each other and locked up, we shouldn’t see ourselves as competitors or enemies, but as people with whom we can relate – as possible carers and accomplices. And as the eyes of the state become more and more omnipresent and the noose of capitalism becomes tighter and tighter around our necks, we must look for ways to cut them out and sever them.

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded – by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation and at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

It means to be exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, deceived, robbed under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest; then, at the slightest resistance, by the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, offended, dishonoured.

That is government, that is its justice, that is its morality. The government of man by man is slavery. Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant. I declare him my enemy.”

(Originally published in the anarchist Newspaper Zuendlumpen on 24.03.2020)

Will-O‘-The-Wisps

Translation of Irrlichter by Maelstrom.


about my dissatisfaction with some tendencies and perspectives in the anti-civilizational debate

In the twilight, I stand on the edge of a gigantic bog. I cannot see what lies on the other side, behind me stretches the backdrop of the techno-industrial civilization with its factories, roads, rails, radio masts, and, above all, its cornfields, commercial forests, and meadows of fodder clover monitored and controlled by drones. But why look back? The much more relevant question is: How do I get through this bog? I’ve heard countless stories from people who tried before me to cross this moor to escape civilization from behind. There were those who decided to drain part of the moor in order to live there beyond the realms of civilization. They dug drainage ditches and built a monastery on this piece of land. But before they could feel the cold stone walls of this monastery as restrictive, they found themselves – as if by magic, didn’t they? – in the midst of the civilized world again. It had simply expanded to the land that the drainage ditches had made and taken possession of it. And a short time later there was nothing to remind you that this piece of land had been outside the walls of civilization just a short time ago. But it is hardly worth talking about these people. At most as a short anecdote. Instead, I want to turn my gaze to those who have dared to venture out on the secret paths through the moor. On the dangerous and dark paths on which one is easily tempted to follow the glow of a tiny light that all too often has turned out to be a will-o’-the-wisp. And when I tell the stories of those who are said to have lost their way, it is not to rise above them, but rather to help myself choose my own paths through this moor.

I

I recently read a pamphlet with the rather programmatic title “Anarchism vs. Primitivism,” a translation of a text by Brian Oliver Sheppard from 2003. Not Sheppard’s only text on “primitivism” and also not Sheppard’s only text with such a programmatic title. It was mostly about anarchism, which Sheppard argued was against primitivism. Bakunin had to serve the same purpose in an effusion with the almost equally epic title as that of a pop culture trash film called “Cowboys vs. Aliens” (namely “Bakunin vs. the Primitivists”) from the year 2000. I thought about writing a reply to Brian Oliver Sheppard’s text not because I am a supporter of the “primitivism” he criticizes (whatever that is supposed to be according to his definition), but because his criticism does not actually criticize “primitivism”, but rather any anti-civilizational thinking. But in the end, a text that works on such criticism is perhaps not worth the paper on which it is written. Why enter a debate in which everything is lumped together from the start? A debate in which “primitivism” appears mainly as a counter-construction to the syndicalism advocated by Sheppard. A debate in which it seems to be less about dealing with certain positions and discussing them, but rather about forming fronts (the “anarchists” on the one hand and the “primitivists” on the other) and delegitimizing certain positions on the basis of as polarizing as – often out of context – quotations. No, this debate will get me nowhere and probably no one else either. And yet it often seems to be debates of this kind that prevail in the German-speaking context when anti-civilizational perspectives are discussed.

In my assessment, all these debates, which for obvious reasons choose “primitivism” as the enemy, are so uninteresting for the (further) development of anti-civilizational positions because behind them there is a dogmatic pro-civilizationism that accordingly conflicts with the (at least as perceived) dogmatic anti-civilizational positions. Sheppard’s text is no exception. At the beginning of his article, he begins with a collection of quotes – supposedly representative of primitivism – discussing the effects of the introduction of electricity in different regions. It seems to him that the view that electricity is not exactly found to be positive is so strange and absurd that the only argument he tries to support his contradicting point of view is to use the “lack of electricity” as “Characteristics of Poverty“ and consequently to imply that everyone who sees electricity differently must support poverty – a term that only makes sense in the context of property and, above all, in the generally comparable context of civilization. If Sheppard does not seem to be interested in elaborating an alternative criticism of civilization and – in this example – electricity, but instead a more or less formulated criticism of electricity – even though he falsifies the lines of argument at best – simply an endorsement of electricity as an achievement, as progress, so to speak – to what extent can his attitude then be understood as anti-civilizational at all? (A question he probably wouldn’t say himself at all…) But even further, when Sheppard in the introduction of his text quotes the anarcho-syndicalist Sam Dolgoff, who cannot bear the fact that someone “always went barefoot, [ate] raw food, mostly nuts and raisins, and [refused] a tractor because he was against machines and did not want to abuse horses [and] thus [himself] [digging up] the earth” and accordingly comes to the conclusion that “such self-proclaimed anarchists are really ‘ox-cart anarchists’ [who] [were] who opposed the organization and wanted to return to a simple life.” Can one even speak of dealing with an anarchist text here? Certainly one can understand that one or the other a certain frustration builds up again and again about the fact that others are not following their own analyzes or not sharing the same path that one believes will lead to revolution or elimination that might lead to dominion or wherever. But if someone “opposes the organization” and you do it with such harsh words (and of course I am not concerned with the words themselves)…

II

What can (historical) science tell me about the pre-civilizing or also extra-civilizing life of people? Personally, I take the view of Fredy Perlman that the story, his-story, always was that of Leviathan, is and always will be. Historiography always tries to abstract a narrative that is always told from a certain perspective and usually also at most from a handful of people and derive general validities from it. This not only denies the individuals about whom a narrative is about – a process in which Leviathan always comes in handy – but also implies, among other things, which stories are told, or are allowed to be told, and which are not.

I want to illustrate this with a number of examples: If one looks at Leviathan’s recent history (of which there are quite a number of contemporary written records from several individuals), let’s say, for example, the era of National Socialism, an epoch that was just 75 years ago, it fails to tell the stories of so many people … But there are diaries, files, eyewitness reports, and much more, some may object. Sure, but whose diaries are our priority today? Who dared to keep a diary anyway? For who was it materially possible – for example because they had access to paper and ink, or because they could write at all – to keep a diary? Who hasn’t burned their diaries out of fear at some point? Who hasn’t lost them on the run? Whose diaries ended up in archives, whose diaries were disposed of by a relative after their death, who had any relatives who could have looked after their estate? And the files? What should a file say about a person? She alone is a testimony of a man’s administration. To believe that something else could be gained from it seems to me naive at best, and at worst to be an endorsement of the state logic of people as entities to be administered. And the eyewitness accounts? What if there weren’t any witnesses? What if none of the eyewitnesses survived? What if the eyewitnesses persistently keep silent?

Other examples that are similarly obvious would be the Soviet Russian era, the Inquisition, the colonization of America, etc. But even if these examples show particularly clearly that it is ultimately the Leviathan’s stories that can (still) be told today, even if one may occasionally tell them in a critical tone, the following applies to every epoch in which people lived whose stories historians will not tell. Be it because they don’t want to or because they can’t.

And the further back an epoch is, or the less it has been handed down, the fewer stories can be told from it that are not Leviathan. Archeology, for example, often draws its findings from grave goods. I may be forgiven – or resented – my amateurish presentation and possibly also my “ignorance” in this regard – but I do not think that one can conclude from the fact that arrowheads were found in a grave, for example, that the Buried comes from a warrior culture. Sure, maybe these arrowheads were once buried with the corpse as grave goods and were meant to express something that can be described as warrior culture. Or maybe the person in the grave was simply shot with multiple arrows and at the funeral, nobody bothered to remove the arrows – or just the tips – beforehand. Perhaps the arrowheads were also placed in the grave, but more because the person buried in his community was more of a nerd who had a gun or arrowhead obsession and these were his favorites. Or you put them in the grave because you thought that someday some grave robbers would come along and make some speculations and then you thought it was just funny to let them ponder on arrowheads. Or, or, or. In short: don’t historians often simply project what they know from their epoch – or sometimes any longings – into other epochs? And not just the historians. Isn’t it the whole of history/archeology/anthropology that can only make statements about its subject against the background of its own epoch?

III

In the search for the origins of civilization, as well as in the search for examples of a life liberated from it, the attention of many anti-civilizational debates is directed to so-called primitive communities, i.e. communities outside civilization – and also to those that existed before their emergence, as well as those who were able to oppose their grip on their margins up to today or into the last centuries. It is above all the sources of science from which the stories about various primitive societies are drawn, especially the disciplines of archeology and anthropology. But with the stories, another concept of science seems to have found its way into their interpretation: the need to systematize these stories, to bring them into harmony with one another and in the process to create a universal narrative of the primitive, which often must serve as a template for its own utopia of a coexistence liberated from civilization.

I have already stated that, in my opinion, such a process constitutes Leviathan’s history. Here I would like to shed light on another effect that seems closely related to this process, but develops its own dynamic: the emergence of a utopia (and ideology?), of a uniform, “primitive” way of life, which becomes the blueprint of every thought game of a non-civilized life and as such seems to favor tendencies towards organized transformation rather than chaotic destruction.

At the beginning of this process, there is the eradication of the uniqueness of every (primitive) community and every (primitive) individual. Perhaps this is because the term primitive itself was initially coined by civilized people as a counter-construction and with the term, possibly more of this original concept of thought found its way into the thinking of the enemies of civilization than one would like. In any case, this term unites the most diverse communities and individuals whose way of life could hardly be more different. What seems to serve a certain (albeit abstracting and scientific) purpose in the search for commonalities between those who lead a life that did not produce any civilizing institutions, loses it for good when asked about a positive outline of a non-civilized life.

Not only that – for example, in an environment in which almost every big game has been exterminated or the remaining herds – at least without civilizational management – are on the verge of extinction, the customs of “primitive” hunter communities even in the face of a civilization in ruins, are of relatively little use. With the uniformity of these customs often invoked today, I also seem to run the risk of adopting customs distilled from a completely abstracted, economized [1] perspective, which – in this way, robbed of their connections, for example, a spiritual connection to nature, etc. – would never work anyway. But if this model of the “primitive” is not able to give me anything for my own life, why should I orientate myself towards it? Why systematize it and reconcile the unique, different stories from far apart regions as well as ages?

Sometimes such an attempt at systematization seems to me to be a kind of scientific neurosis. No wonder, like many others, I am used to generalizing stories that give me something and occasionally catch myself presenting contradicting stories almost obsessively to myself as implausible. I think beyond what one can perhaps learn about oneself in the process, there is no particular problem in such a purely individual systematization. Occasionally, especially in scientific analyzes and debates that rely particularly heavily on them, it seems to me that there is a little more lurking behind such a systematization. Wherever suggestions are made as to how we could systematically “restore” the whole world to a state that resembles the “original” state that (idealized) “primitive” societies would have found, there, in my opinion, a certain one begins to develop the logic of civilization, namely that of the complete organization of the whole world and its orientation towards a unified goal. And even if the currently emerging, planned reorganization of the world through the “green wing” of capital certainly looks very different from what some proponents of a reformist “primitivization” of society may have imagined, it seems the resemblance to be somehow striking to me.

Such tendencies seem to me to be based primarily on the fact that stories about primitive societies are systematized and woven into a primitive ideal, which in turn is supposed to serve as a blueprint for a post-civilized world. Instead of aligning my actions with such an ideal, it seems more sensible to me to start from my own condition, my individual possibilities and longings. Instead of measuring my actions by the extent to which they contribute to an (eternally) future ideal, I want to passionately pursue my longings, freed from the fetters of my domestication, in the here and now, want to destroy what restricts me in them and possibly also this or that remnant benefit civilization. Not in the form, of course, that follows the dictates of civilization itself and reproduces it, but always with a view to preserving or restoring my freedom and that of others and to destroy hierarchies and oppression.

IV

For many anti-civilizational critics, the notion that the system is collapsing has been one of the cornerstones of their analysis for years. And in view of nuclear waste, arsenals that could destroy the earth several times, dwindling arable land, oil reserves, rainforests, and rising CO2, who can blame them for predicting a collapse of the system. By the way, they are by no means alone. Even system-supporting institutions such as the Club of Rome have been marketing the idea of ​​an approaching apocalypse through the limits of growth for decades with some success. And in fact, the ideas of collapse of some anti-civilization critics hardly differ in detail from those of these doomsday prophets on behalf of “green” capital. Who has copied from whom can often no longer be fully explained today, but one thing is certain: The doomsday prophets of capital do not look forward to the collapse they have systematized in joyful anticipation, but rather deal with the techno-industrial system during this to keep decay alive. Their assessments have been considered for years at international military security summits and serve as a blueprint for new counterinsurgency strategies.

All of this can certainly not be blamed for anti-civilizational collapse ideas. On the contrary: While the oracles of civilization and capital have advised governments, companies, and other civilizational warlords for decades on how to prepare for such a collapse (by the way, the most recent of these campaigns, the so-called Global Reset or Great Reset are interpreted in this way) the anti-civilizing seers of this collapse have remained astonishingly passive. If you disregard mostly institutionalized and often commercially marketed survival courses, the strategies for acting in such a collapse seem astonishingly hollowed out to me. Those who otherwise criticize the hoarding of food as a basic condition for the emergence of civilization develop surprisingly often, who suspects it, the hoarding of food as the most important perspective with regard to such a collapse. I don’t want to be misunderstood here: Especially within nature, which is rugged by civilization, survival in the event of a collapse of civilization and its food production only appears possible thanks to food supplies. Accordingly, my criticism is not directed against the creation of food supplies per se, but rather against the fact that such a project quickly becomes the only perspective that lets any active attack on civilization die out in the here and now.

Because even if a discussion about strategies in such a collapse scenario certainly has its value, above all I have the feeling that too narrow a focus on a collapse is nothing more than a driver of passivity. Anyone who always aligns their own actions with what may happen in the future is pledging their own life in the present to this future. When I try to imagine what it must be like to wait for decades for civilization to finally collapse and then finally to lead a life according to my own desires, the only keyword that comes to mind is unsatisfactory! And the most important question seems to be there: Why wait? As a declared enemy, why should I wait in civilization until it one day (perhaps) abolishes itself because it collapses? Wouldn’t it be much more satisfying, much less passive, and much more compatible with living my desires if I instead looked for ways to destroy civilization? And does a destroyed civilization increase the chance of a life beyond civilization immensely in comparison to a collapsed civilization that previously completely exploited or destroyed all “resources”, that is, all nature?

Regardless of the fact that I want to live now and do not want to direct all my hopes for a life according to my own longings towards an indefinite future that I can hardly influence, a collapse of civilization actually seems relatively unlikely to me. On the one hand, it can almost always be said of the collapsed civilizations of the past that they were devoured by another, expanding civilization instead of simply falling apart. On the other hand, it can be observed, especially in the last few decades, that the apparatus that perhaps “Western civilization” could be called, is making enormous efforts to prevent a collapse due to limited resources. And by that, I don’t just mean the ludicrous notions of expansion into the vastness of space that are being pursued more vigorously than ever before. I also mean what an economic and scientific elite is currently selling as the “pandemic opportunity”: the organized reduction of resource consumption through the mere administration of people in the future while at the same time restricting what has been euphemistically termed “freedoms” up to now and their pacification with the help of technology.

Either way: Anyone who puts all their hopes on the fact that the techno-industrial system will collapse on its own in the near (or distant) future seems, in my opinion, to tend to take on the role of a passive observer and thereby deprive oneself of one’s own scope of action. Instead of shifting my longings into the future in this way, I want to live them now. Instead of waiting for a system to collapse and preparing for the brutal war for survival that follows – in which the most destructive weapons are still in the hands of my enemies (military, cops, politicians, etc.), it seems to me much more interesting to look for ways to sabotage and attack the techno-industrial system here and now, so that it ultimately collapses less than is destroyed to its foundations by a voluntary act.

V

One of the greatest successes of the idea of ​​(linear) time must be accounted for that progressiveness and progressivity, in common parlance, stands for a development that is viewed as positive, while regression and regressivity denotes a development that is viewed more negatively. You want to move forward, step by step towards a goal. A step backwards? A disaster! To stand still? Waste of time. One step aside? Unthinkable. Progress or regression, there doesn’t seem to be anything else. And where his-entire-history is arranged on a timeline that brings events, which at times could hardly have less to do with each other, in a common chronology, which in turn in the various schools of thought of progress (capitalism, Marxism, liberalism, etc.) be interpreted that progress is not only the only possible, historical-materialistic direction, but that its whole history has inevitably moved towards precisely this moment of the present, then the only non-progressive way out seems to be the hamster wheel of Time to bring it to a standstill, only to then turn it backwards one revolution at a time.

But whether progress or regression, whether I turn the hamster wheel forwards or backwards, in any case a certain idea of ​​temporality seems to hold me captive and (at least in my mind) to determine in advance what my life and its circumstances should look like. And it is by no means a coincidence that, regardless of where I might like to move on this timeline, turning the clock hands backwards or forwards is not just an effort that requires enormous force, such as can only be mobilized by the institutions of civilization , but also accordingly not only my life, but that of everyone within civilization. One could – and should even – describe the act of turning the clock (no matter whether forwards or backwards) as an act of civilization, because it would be nothing more than the organization of (human) living beings in an artificial, in itself lifeless monster, that through them brought to life, would set the clock hands in motion and thereby determine the course of all humanity, civilization, the earth (the universe?).

The concept of time that is widespread today as an independent, absolute, universal, strictly linear institution developed parallel to the emergence of modern science and the so-called “industrial revolution” [2], which also ran parallel to it. Not only Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and many other early exponents of this development had an obsession with time. Their current spiritual successors also maintain an almost obsessive relationship with this institution. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, for example, a global leader in degrading people to robots in his company’s logistics centers (something that recalls certain statements made by the forefathers of modern science), is currently building a pilgrimage site for contemporary believers in a mountain in West Texas: a gigantic clock that will measure time for the next 10,000 years. His main motivation for this project may surprise one or the other: “As I see it, humans are now technologically advanced enough that we can create not only extraordinary wonders but also civilization-scale problems. We’re likely to need more long-term thinking.”[3] The clock is a symbol of long-term planning, or in other words: temporality and long-term planning/organization as one of the fundamental dimensions of civilization.

Where the transhumanist and technology enthusiast Jeff Bezos undoubtedly means advanced planning and technological development, retrograde planning and technological re-development hardly seem to mean anything else. Technically, only a minimal change is required, such as adding or removing a gear to make a clock run backwards instead of forwards. But what would that change? Today, the watch synchronizes the civilizing efforts of an army of slave workers, meticulously and to the second from the wrist of its owner or, more recently, from the inside of their smartphones. To take possession of this instrument and from now on let time run backwards in an attempt to organize civilization away seems to me to be following a fundamental misinterpretation of this process. Isn’t it the synchronization itself that defines civilization, less the direction in which it takes place? De-synchronization, on the other hand, appears to me only through the total abandonment of a certain course, through the complete destruction of the synchronization mechanisms of the temporal and the resulting chaotic and consequently by no means absolute or universal course of time – if one can then still speak of temporality at all – to be possible.

***

These fragments of a critique of some widespread aspects of anti-civilizational thought in no way open up a new way out. Rather, they can be understood as a (albeit superficial) commentary on existing approaches and thus as a starting point for a renewed debate about strategies, analysis, and perspectives that may still be held.


[1] A somewhat amusing example: Recently someone told me about an ERoI (Energy Return on Investment) from hunter/gatherer communities and that this is very high compared to civilized societies. I still have to smile a bit about that today. Not because that may not be true from (today’s) economic perspective, but rather because I have to imagine how one tries to explain to a member of such a hunter/gatherer community that, because of their way of life, I admire this high ERoI ,and (presumably) will encounter no understanding at all. In fact, it cannot be said that the person who told me about this ERoI would consider an (abstract or specific) “primitive” way of life in purely economic terms; investigated “primitive” societies and yet it seems to me to be the expression of a perspective that must have already eliminated all individuality, as well as all unique characteristics of a community, in order to be able to reach such a statement at all.

[2] An interesting treatise on this development of time can be found, for example, in John Zerzan: Time and Its Discontents.

[3] Direct quote: “The way I see it, people are now technologically advanced enough not only to perform extraordinary miracles, but also to cause problems on a civilizational scale. So we have to think long-term.”

Dated February 7, 2021. Translated 2021 by Robin. Retrieved from Zündlumpen No. 080.

Anarchism and Egoism

Translation of Anarchismus und Egoismus by Maelstrom.


It is among the anarchists (still!) that multiple common superstitions exist, stating that egoism and anarchy are enemies, that they stand opposed and above one another. That the complete acceptance of this statement is wrong, we want to briefly to prove such here.

Egoism is the driving force of all human actions. Each living being holds greed to maintain and to enjoy itself. What limits does anarchism place on egoism? Anarchism has only one commandment: Thou shalt not rule. This is the only barrier which anarchism offers egoism. However, anarchist-egoism grants a thousand liberties which are forbidden in today’s society. It will therefore be in the interest of egoism if anarchy were to arise, and therefore it can only welcome it.

Yes, we expect anarchy from the interests of people; we do not think that anarchy will rise from charity. When we are outraged by today’s society, it is for a selfish reason: because we are treated unfairly by it and want to assert ourselves.

It is not selfishness in and of itself that stands in the way of our propaganda, it is ignorance and excessive tolerance. If only the workers wanted to become so selfish, the exploiters would no longer be validated! If only the workers were so divorced to recognize their real enemies! If only they became so selfish as to be outraged against their tyrants.

The fruits of egoism depend on the abilities of man. The egoism of a restricted head will always take on a limited form; the egoism of a free one will always take a brilliant form. And even if it remains incomprehensible to the penny fox and the religious sectarian, the truth always remains the same: that all actions spring from egoism.

Our task, therefore, is not to fight egoism; this would be as unsuccessful as it would be pointless. We can only fight ignorance, we can show workers how they are being cheated and robbed of their jobs, and that the police and military are just the stooges of the oppressors. Once the workers have come to this realization, egoism will not miss the right goal.

Many people think the goal of selfishness is a stuffed money bag or a stew belly. However, these are only excesses as they are timed under today’s conditions. Egoism strives for the well-being and individuality of the individual. And there is no better ground for this than anarchy.

A n A n a r c h i s t – E g o i s t

[London Workers’ Newspaper No. 5; January 25, 1896]

Dated January 25, 1896. Translated July 25, 2021 by Robin. Retrieved from Zündlumpen No. 083.

 

Radical Left, I’m Breaking Up With You

Translation of Radikale Linke, ich trenne mich von dir! by Maelstrom.


After several years as an anarchist in the radical left, because I thought that I would find people there who would share my ideas (which in some cases also happened), today I am at a point where I ask, how I could ever believe that anarchy and the radical left are somehow compatible. The fact that I succumbed to this error is also due to the natural participation of many anarchist people in the radical left movement and the naturalness with which anarchy is understood as part of left ideologies (perhaps reinforced by the protection of the constitution, which both — the radical left movement and anarchism — classifies it as “left-wing extremist”). Here, completely contrary ideas come together under the concept of the radical left. Authoritarian communists from the DKP, the FDJ or the MLPD, the party Die Linke[1] and its many sub- and youth organizations and foundations, more autonomous communist groups and libertarian communists, autonomous and post-autonomous groups and anarchists, all these people and ideas are summarized under the term “the radical left” or “the radical left movement”. So for many left-wing radical people on the radical left, anarchy is somehow part of it, even if it is ridiculed by many as naive and lacking in theory, and only has to admit (although by no means everyone who feels they belong to the radical left movement) that its criticism of authoritarianism might not be completely wrong after all. However, one sighs, shaking his head, would people who were exclusively interested in anarchy do not see that the anarchist theory does not encompass the complexity of the world, which can be seen from the fact that anarchists cannot produce a Bible like Marx’s Capital and do not have complicated writing intellectual authorities, who would help shape the academic discourse and would enjoy prestige in the university landscape. Apart from the fact that there are unfortunately already people who think they can make their contribution to anarchy by climbing the career ladder in the academic world while researching anarchy, it is, of course, clear that anarchists with their distrust of authorities of all kinds and their hatred of state and non-state institutions as well as the teaching industry and the trust in their own judgment and their ability to speak for themselves and only for themselves, cannot produce any such publications or theories. Anarchy is often (depending on the individual only to a certain extent) defamed, but at the same time ostensibly integrated. Spicing communism with anarchist elements is believed by many to be the most fruitful combination of the two. Anarchist ideas are falsified beyond recognition, with the exception of extra-parliamentary opposition, registered demonstrations and rallies, demands on the state, projects funded by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, fixed groups, Plena with a speech leader and speech list, capitalist publishers, symbolic acts such as igniting a Bengalo[2] at a demo, etc. — the whole boring repertoire of left activism — also for people who consider themselves anarchist to become the epitome of anarchist rebellion.

While many may occasionally criticize authoritarian structures within the radical left, they still believe that they basically share the same ideas. For years I believed that too, but recently I have become more and more aware that we simply have absolutely nothing in common. As the name of the radical left already suggests, it is located far to the left within a parliamentary (party) system and sees itself as an extra-parliamentary opposition. This means that people decide to stand up for their positions outside of parliament and sometimes — within a certain framework — to go beyond the limits of the legal and thus force changes within the system. For many, this does not exclude cooperation with political parties and their various sub-organizations. Of course, that still means wanting to participate in the parliamentary process, just outside the parliaments. Extra-parliamentary is not anti-parliamentary. It does not mean a radical rejection of the state and rule in general. To be “left” only makes sense in the context of a parliamentary understanding. Of course, a term is just a term, and many people who feel they belong to the radical left clearly see themselves as anarchists and reject state and rule. In addition, the radical left (as opposed to the democratic left) basically has the desire to change or even overturn the currently prevailing system. However, since the basis of the radical left is communist in nature, most of them are united by the vision of a new, “fairer” social order, which, depending on people and ideas, is diffuse to very concrete and differently authoritarian, but rarely includes a rejection of any order. In addition, many are (for the time being) satisfied with standing up for reforms or with partial struggles or probably also hope that such partial struggle movements will eventually result in a “revolutionary mass” that will shake the current system.

But can’t anarchism still be part of the radical left because of that? In asking myself this question, I find it worthwhile to reflect on how communism and anarchy — the ideas that are at the base of the radical left — differ. And that is clearly the attitude towards rule and state. Anarchism clearly rejects both, while communism finds both acceptable as means to an end. “The radical left” in contrast to communism is the more diffuse, less uniform, less authoritarian development of classical authoritarian communism, with more diversity, more different opinions, due to the experience with the real socialist regimes as well as democratic and anarchist influences, a less concrete plan than that of the old classical communist cadres. However, the basis of the radical left remains communism, even if for most of them with significantly less authoritarian ideas.

For me, however, anarchy cannot be part of the radical left, because for me anarchy means rejecting and attacking rule in any form. This also means seeing the state and all of its organs and institutions as my enemies. For me, it also means to refuse the political game in its entirety. I do not want to speak for others or advocate for the rights of a group, nor for rights in general, since the judicial system and its whole ideology is domineering. I don’t make alliances, I don’t found a group or a party, I don’t submit to any ideology or leaders, I don’t negotiate, I don’t compromise, I don’t present myself as the avant-garde or an alternative. I’m fighting for my freedom and I’m looking for accomplices that I can conspire with. I don’t want a new social order, because the idea of ​​a social order is already authoritarian, but I want to free myself from any order and morality that restricts my actions. For me, that also means absolute uncompromisingness with regard to my anti-domination ideas. But this is not compatible with the radical left, which in large parts has no clear hostility to rule, and in some cases even welcomes rule if it is exercised by the “right” people. To see myself as part of the radical left or to locate myself accordingly or to participate means for me to give up this uncompromising attitude. It means that I mediate that anarchism and authoritarian ideas — and this also includes standing up for or against individual laws or entering into alliances with democratic or other non-domineering people — are compatible. This fundamentally contradicts the anarchist idea — and thus turns it into a hollow phrase that no longer has any content. I am not at all a fan of adorning oneself with any identity or of giving myself any fancy name and especially of submitting to a group ideology, nevertheless, I get suspicious when people have reservations about the concept of anarchism or anarchy and prefer to stay within the radical ones. Locating the left as the supposedly “looser” affiliation, because for me anarchism or anarchy means nothing more than the radical rejection of rule in any form, in contrast to the term radical left, for me that can only mean that this person is not fundamentally hostile to rule. But we certainly do not share a consensus, not even minimally, with regard to our ideas.

What good is it for me to see anarchy as part of the radical left? Why is there such an umbrella term at all that combines so many different ideas under one general name? Anarchism and communism have a long history in common. From anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism to platformism, many people have tried to combine anarchism and communism. But from the beginning, there were always anarchists who could not discover anything in common with the communists. Those who saw their individual freedom threatened by the authoritarian ideas of communism and corresponding anarchist actors and who have not yet seen themselves as part of the left-wing radical or communist “movement.” Communism as well as the communist variants of anarchism always require a “mass”, that is, a large number of people come together in order to act together with a goal and to force changes through their masses. How do you achieve such greatness, especially when the golden days of mass organizations are over? In any case, it seems to bring together practically all possible ideas under the term “radical left”. Those who follow the discourses within the radical left at least a little will probably not be able to avoid hearing the calls for unity and the warning of division over and over again. Allegedly they all have the same goal and you don’t have to get into each other’s hair over any little thing. How many times have I heard this call when I or others criticized something. Be it a criticism of Rote Hilfe, orthodox Marxists, anti-Semitism, or authoritarian behavior, especially when this criticism was also expressed in a journalistic way, I heard that one could lead such disputes “internally”, but not externally and that people still have to show solidarity with everyone. Especially in times of a shift to the right, it is currently said, for example, that all “progressive” or “emancipatory” forces should stick together. Already a clever move to first include anarchists in the universe of the radical left, in order to then counter criticism with the accusation of division and to admonish conformist behavior because only in the mass and in unity are people strong. Otherwise, one would play the “counterrevolutionary”, the “fascist” forces, or currently the AfD in the cards. A trick that communists used in revolutionary Russia from 1917 to 1921 or in Spain in 1937 and which has worked wonderfully to this day. Those who rely on countervailing power need unity and mass. Who, as I and how I understand anarchism, fights every power and stands only for himself, as an individual, distrusting any mass, any unity and despising the suffocation of substantive criticism with the help of rhetorical tricks and opposes the political game that is playing neither right nor left authoritarian assholes into the hands, but fights no matter where the political wind blows from, for their own freedom. This is one of the reasons why I am so vehemently opposed to assigning anarchy to the radical left. Because I see how people try to silence me and my criticism, admonish me to make political calculations, to use me for themselves and their ideas that are not mine. I see that people with whom I have nothing in common who represent authoritarian ideas think that WE would be on the same side of a united front. I see that many are not interested in a serious discussion about ideas, but just want to emerge from a debate as winners, just want to distinguish themselves, want to gain authority. I see all of these dynamics paralyze and stifle how people try to silence me and my criticism, admonish me to political calculation, to use me for themselves and their ideas that are not mine.

That is why I declare my break with the radical left! May she perish because of her united front mentality and her sympathy for communism and politics in general!


[1] “The Left,” referencing left-wing political parties.

[2] A German firework or flare.

The Personal is Anti-Political

Translation of Das Private ist antipolitisch by Maelstrom.


The production of people is, contrary to the assumption that very few people are somehow involved, subject to control countless bodies and a highly competitive field. In particular, it is a question of who should and may testify to which constitution, when and how many descendants, and who is not.

If we consider the goal of the State with regard to the witnessing of people, we find that it is particularly concerned with having productive German citizens bred according to the ableist norm, whom it gets so indoctrinated with the help of the school system that they fulfill the tasks that are vital to the preservation of the State. So while attempts are being made to persuade people with “middle and secure income in stable circumstances” to have children – with the help of child benefit and stove bonuses and the like. If possible, everyone else should be prevented from doing so. While abortions are still a criminal offense forced sterilization is still common practice for people with intellectual disabilities – and doctors are happy to advise, thanks to better prenatal diagnostics, more and more frequently to abort fetuses with disabilities. In the GDR, pregnant “contract workers” were even given the choice of either having an abortion or leaving the country. Until a few years ago, trans people had to be sterilized before they could change their civilized status. Many people report how doctors, counselors, or their environment urge them to terminate a pregnancy because they do not correspond to the image of the “perfect parent.” Even Fundis doesn’t seem to be so concerned with the “soul” of the individual fetus, when they complain that “the European people” are dying out. The German State also expresses dismay that “the Germans” are having too few children. Good German, white, non-disabled children who are not reproduced as heavily as the post-Nazi German society, together with its most fundamentalist Christians, would like. The State has to maintain itself and it can do that best if it organizes the production of the offspring. Incidentally, well beyond pregnancy, through the isolation of people with the help of the promotion of the structure of the heterosexual blood-related nuclear family and the provision of the upbringing by the school.

Regardless of how many small family structures are useful to the State, it is also otherwise creepy how much this family image still prevails as the only ideal. You have probably already heard that people who have a child are unlucky and, in case of doubt, have to take care of it alone because they had the baby in their womb and can therefore be clearly identified as a participant in the procreation process, in contrast to the person who would have contributed the sperm cell. One baby looks like another. As soon as someone has squeezed the baby out of itself, it cannot be assigned to this person any more than to the natural parent. Nevertheless, such a “natural bond” is invented between the pregnant woman and the born child, which the pregnant person is simply not supposed to have. As a result, adopted and foster children always suffer from the stigma of having been abandoned by their blood relatives, especially by “their mother.” This also means that the pregnant women are “naturally” responsible for their brood, while everyone else – and I mean here everyone else, not just the pregnant person, but also everyone else around the pregnant person – says “We want nothing to do with this.”

As early as the 1930’s, the anarchist Mujeres Libres, the free women, a movement that had over 30,000 members at its peak, grappled with new family models. They organized cooking and childcare collectively, in the form of communal kitchens and kindergartens. A few years earlier, the Anarchist-Syndicalist Women’s Association formed “mother settlements” in which single women came together or propagated “Einküchehäuser,” also a form of collective organization of the kitchen. However, we should not confuse these forms of organization with current childcare centers and company canteens. In neoliberalism there are many attempts at appropriating originally revolutionary ideas of autonomy, social organization, and liberation. Captured by capitalist logic, they become more subtle mechanisms of exploitation that are only more difficult to combat. The aim of establishing all-day childcare is here to reclaim labor, not to implement a non-dominant family model.

But why do we need a family model free of domination? A radical feminism that questions the patriarchy will come to the conclusion that not only the rule of fathers is somehow shitty, but that actually al institutions exercising rule are to be rejected. Because whoever begins to question the authority of one’s own father will soon also come to question God the Father, and, of course, the highest of all fathers, the father of the State. Once you start, you can’t get out of it, so that it suddenly becomes clear that only a non-domineering togetherness is feminist, because all power institutions are assistants of the patriarchy.

What does a domination-free family model look like then? Quite differently, depending on the needs of the people involved in the family. One thing is clear, however: who shares which genes with whom is completely unimportant, no person is “naturally” responsible for any tasks, and the amount of people who feel responsible for the young people can be very different. In addition, collective solutions based on solidarity can be built up from spontaneous voluntary get-togethers that deal with, redistribute, and manage tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and caring for young people. However, these must not arise out of capitalist, State, or patriarchal logic, but exclusively out of the spirit of the abolition of all rule. And, of course, the way people grow up has to be dealt with differently. Instead of young people being educated, that is, they are forced to adapt to externally defined ideals and to learn certain contents, they are accompanied and supported in growing up and in voluntary learning.

However, it will not be possible for so long to find serious, domineering ways of dealing with people who have just come into this world, such as politics, and, in this case especially, “population politics.” So if the production of new people and the handling of them is subject to some goal, such as maintaining a “healthy people of good citizens,” or a new generation of Christians or proletarians, or to beget the generation, which will save the Earth from destruction, there will always be oppression of humans and control of human reproduction. Since the goal of every State is to rule its citizens and therefore also the goal of every State to control the reproduction of its citizens, only the smashing of the State can be the solution in order to find a truly sovereign coexistence that only leaves dealing with pregnancy and one’s own body to those who are directly affected. Such a break-up cannot take place by playing along according to the rules of the State, not by “making politics.” Because “making politics” is always a form of exercising power over the heads of affected people, it is always the acceptance of the rules of the game that first create the structures that make it possible to suppress people in their reproductive freedoms. With this in mind, I would like to call for people to finally stop “making politics” and to fight the oppressive structures of the society radically and uncompromisingly, and to begin a non-dominant coexistence in the here and now. Long live anarchy!

Translated 2021 by Robin, published by Maelstrom.

A Statement on the Failure of the Left in General

Translation of Thesen zum Scheitern der Linken im Allgemeinen by Maelstrom.


It is difficult for the more radical left in question to admit the devastating measures in which they have just participated as – at least – a propaganda wing. So it is clear that all those who have criticized these measures must be smeared with some label that puts them in the right corner. And why not Social Darwinism?
The Konkret[1] has classified my article “Death to the Statisticians” in ZL #64 as “Social Darwinist” and “leftist”[2]. Both labels of ideologies and movements that I reject. In this, I will reply to the article, which is available for free on the net in English. I’m referring to the English version because paying for an item is too stupid and expensive for me. Unfortunately, I’m poor, and if I ever had money, maybe I should try to get health insurance rather than throw away my money on Konkret.

The article in which the hostility in question occurs best sums up the current stereotypes about what it means to reject Lockdown and Co. The criticism does not leave the field of ideology even once, because it is clear that outside of ideology the individuals are in the category of “risk groups”, were by no means the beneficiaries of the whole regime, are and will not be. Statistically (and it is not more than one statistical group), even if those criticized here would perhaps like to see themselves as representatives) the risk of death, poverty, and disease of these groups, in particular, is currently increasing massively. Anyone who has even just understood contemporary society can do the math. And since „in the fight against Corona“ – just incidentally, of course – a complete preventive counterrevolution has taken place, the left, in particular, has mobilized itself into its radical realms for this fight, that is: for the counterrevolution, and largely demobilized … It can be assumed that the present society will, unfortunately, continue to exist. At least the revolution will not come from the #stayathome faction, which in its “agreement with the polis, the state” (Herbert Marcuse) showed solidarity to let the police and the military take the road. That the coming and ongoing revolts and uprisings will continue, that the collapse scenario that is unfolding before our eyes is unstoppable … that the lockdown regime, or maybe even the world war (who’s laughing?!), which are now imminent, just hinted at it so subtly. And even a political revolution will not change that. This whole civilization should finally disappear in the Orcus, this realization will perhaps soon come to billions of people. Which effectively care little about hospital conditions in Europe, just as little about the national arrogance of certain leftists, etc. They will think more about their hunger and maybe also about their complete exclusion from the beautiful hygienic world where the Corona app or something similar denies them access. Who knows?

If total health protectionism is criticized, then it must be social Darwinist, says Konkret. The latest stage of expropriation, or at least its current formalization, namely the prohibition to dispose of one’s own body and the health risk to which it is exposed, is actually what should be criticized in my article. This expropriation affects everyone right now, not just the so-called risk groups, which are given as the reason, and which were and are always particularly affected by it in the existing society. And as has already been pointed out: this expropriation was also one of the mottos of the National Socialist health policy: „Your health does not belong to you“.
Since the National Socialist type of this expropriation differs from today’s especially through its social Darwinist ideology and practice, it is probably one of the last arguments that can be used for all the unfortunately all too real „measures“ for this despotic mass incarceration. But unfortunately, the whole solidarity discourse remains ridiculous hypocrisy. If you still want to argue that Corona (which would also be part of the flu if it were particularly dangerous – maybe not “only” (which is another discussion), but at least “a” flu) is a special social phase of mutual help has been initiated, which is simply still blinded by propagandistic manipulations which seem to pull particularly well with left-wing people. Or has he longed for an authoritarian regime?

At least personally, I only respect the basis of voluntariness as the basis for a relationship. Otherwise, a certain hostility quickly sets in. If people effectively ask me to lock myself up „at home“ for their sake, and I refuse, and ultimately refrain from beating them, even if I assert my logical right to do so, then that has nothing to do with that I see them as „life unworthy of life“ I also do not wish for „nature to rule“ over them, whatever that is supposed to mean. Rather, I would find it quite nice and am also ready to live in a world of mutual help, in which the reality of all the „risk groups“ is not pushed into homes … but honestly also a world in which death is neither abolished is still seen as the main enemy, but as part of life My utopia would probably be a dystopia for Bloch and Stephan Weigand and Rebecca Maskos. They hope for a further development of the technological nightmare, in which one sacrifices life for survival, be it at work, in lockdown, everywhere … in which confinement is an eternal part, is considered normal and worth living. No thanks! #Stayathome is probably the exact opposite of a „better, liberated society“. The „promise of the longest and best possible life“ is the promise that lets you accept the „false whole of rule“ (the last 3 quotes are from Konkret, Go die!). Or so it seems.

In contrast, the revolution will be like a festival. A festival that will hopefully never end. In which everyone can participate, „whether young or old, rolling or hobbling,“ multimorbid „or very normal“ (Konkret). What counts is leaving the area of ​​fear, not least the fear of death. Because, like a sticker that can be seen here on many street corners, says: „The fear of death robs us of the courage to live“. And clearly one will die in the process. Of course, people will die early too – but without the sacrifice, without the death in life, which so often makes up our lives today.

Life, not just survival! For the destruction of the economy! For an end to all incarceration!


[1] Translator’s Note: Konkret (or, in English, Concrete) is the name of an anti-establishment leftist/socialist magazine. Its maxim is „reading what others don’t want to know“ (lesen, was andere nicht wissen wollen).

[2] (1) Rebecca Maskos / Stephan Weigand – Go die! -Corona crisis shows that social Darwinist ideas are taken up by left-wing politics / respectively in German, according to the website: Geht die! The Corona crisis shows that social Darwinist ideas are also widespread on the left. In concrete 7/2020. I translated quotes from the text back from English and didn’t get too hung up on the choice of words, after all, I don’t know the exact choice of words …