I don't mean to sound unkind but I've always thought applying for documents with an X marker was a huge rube move

For example, no matter what else they do, Food Not Bombs feeds hungry people, and that is worth doing.

The point the video made was that while it is a good thing to do, it isn't toppling the conditions that give rise to starvation or homelessness in the first place, so it's not the most effective thing to do. Our org tried to do red charity and organizing work for a while, but we eventually had to face the fact that the charity work was eating up too much of our limited time, energy, and funding. Since we were such a small group of people, it was sapping most of the energy we could've been putting towards organizing, so we eventually had to make the difficult decision to suspend the program. The decision was delayed for quite a while because some people thought it was too heartless to stop doing grocery handouts.

At the same time they offer a chance for meeting people with similar values and philosophies.

They touched on that, too, and came to the conclusion that a limited grocery distribution could be useful as a stepping stone to connect with the advanced masses. If it's done with that in mind, with the intention of moving on to bigger and better things once you get more people on board, then it can be a good starting tactic.

That’s where having pre-established networks of people willing to help each other may be life saving - both for you and others.

Sure, I agree with this. I have a side project that I run that would fall under your definition of mutual aid (I can't say what it is, due to OpSec). But it's not a massive drain on my time or resources, so it's feasible for me to do. I think mutual aid should be something that the masses do themselves to support each other. The issue I'm talking about is when a self-proclaimed revolutionary org is spending all of its time and energy doing one-sided "mutual" aid work that doesn't get them any closer to revolution.

one of the best things to come out of vice going bankrupt tbh

I love 404Media; they receive $10 from me every month and they deserve it.

I know a lot of Marxists love to engage in violent fantasies about what to do about anarchists and ancoms but the end world they both describe is very nebulous. It's not that different, to me.

Having things organized in some way is not against anarchist principles but online Marxists love to talk about purging them and shit idk it's so weird and aggro.

Note that non anarchist philosophies also struggle with the question of "how do we prevent our system from being taken over by the badguys?" Whether it's monarchists saying "this system works great if the monarch is good but the trick is to make sure a doofus doesn't become monarch", or democracies wondering how we can prevent a demagogue from taking power and abolishing the democracy via popular vote. Even communists have the same problem: whatever administration you set up, how do you prevent it from turning itself into something terrible that's bad for people?

So yes, anarchism doesn't solve it but nothing else does either, IMO.

I have not read up a huge amount but I think the standard answer is something along the lines of that anarchism does not mean lack of organising, just lack of hierarchy.

After a revolution there would still be larger structure and organising but would, ideally under an anarchistic viewpoint, be bottom-up, voluntary and truly democratic.

There’s a lot of different types of anarchism and lots of different answers to how this would theoretically work. E.g. anarcho-syndicalism is focused on the idea of anarchist trade unions seizing control of production.

How to prevent people concentrating and amassing power under these sorts of systems is obviously a big problem and I don’t think there’s any good answer other than you need mass class consciousness and people motivated against allowing that.

Anarchists don't really have the same goal as Marxists, since the "classless, stateless society" the latter wants will still have an "administration of things", which is really just a state in disguise (but Marx doesn't call it as such because he only saw the state merely as a tool for class oppression) as it is a bureaucracy. Just another form of government.

The Raddle wiki has a page that deals with this myth: https://raddle.me/wiki/Marxism_End_Goal

Once I tried to read that "guillotines are bad" essay that they like to disseminate but it was too boring and preachy. That's my only knowledge of anarchist theory

It's more about hierarchical social structures than like... coercing a boss to accept a union. Like you shouldn't have one person in your group who can kick you out or make you do things if you don't want to, or no one should be forced to work a job to make ends meet, through the coercive power of wage labor.

That's not the same as like, you and your co workers getting together and saying if the boss doesn't negotiate we'll go on strike / slash his tires / what have you. That is coercive, in a way, but it's not really the same thing.

Alright full confession on one item - I have adhd and video more than a couple minutes long simply does not work for me, so I saw the vid was 20 minutes and stopped right there.

That said, I’m going to try to address this anyway. In my opinion the best mutual aid networks/opportunities are rarely called “mutual aid,” but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. Any group, formal or informal, working to help each other support themselves (or to help people help each other) should be thought of as a form of mutual aid. Once you accept this it really opens up the possibilities of what you can do.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m all for things like tenant organizing. But since I expect the entire system to collapse in the coming years I don't think that will be enough on its own. That’s where having pre-established networks of people willing to help each other may be life saving - both for you and others.

It’s also true that “handing out groceries” tends to lack the mutual aspect of mutual aid, but it doesn’t have to. And some charities are worth doing even if they are only charity. For example, no matter what else they do, Food Not Bombs feeds hungry people, and that is worth doing. At the same time they offer a chance for meeting people with similar values and philosophies. So even if they are dubious on the “mutual aid” part, they can help lead to genuine mutual aid as well as other organizing opportunities. And even if they don’t do that, they fed hungry people. It’s a win.

Some of these things seem wrong to me, but I don't have the Literature to know otherwise. But this in particular:

Ask yourself if you have two choices, which is the less coercive one to get what your org needs done, and that's probably the way to go

I think I disagree with this? Are there more coercive methods to a better world we're just sitting on?

I mean, I don't think so. But I would love that a lot, even if it means a structure that resembles authoritarianism, or is even just merely closer to authoritarianism than total anarchy.

That said, maybe "coercion" means something different between us. I think disruptive protest is coercive, but also good, for example

The idea is kind of two fold I think.

Communists say that After The Revolution™, society eventually becomes a classless, stateless society and everyone just produces for the common good and receives what they need, and there's no need for money to force people to work, nor for guys with sticks to go beat people up.

So even state communists, usually they're saying their authoritarian government is meant as a stepping stone towards that.

Anarchists have the same goal, except they think once you make the state to break up the bourgeoisie, then that state is going to perpetuate itself and you're never going to move beyond it to the better world, so their organizing tends to be based on non hierarchy. Build the world you want to see today, don't build authoritarian structures that are supposed to break down authoritarianism tomorrow.

I don't understand how the monopoly on violence can be abolished, or how it can be prevented from arising again. I don't understand how an anarchist society will have space for the large contingent of people who would want to recreate a hierarchical state with a monopoly on violence.

The idea is, if you had a society where no one had bosses and everyone had their needs already met, and your neighbor Phil showed up and said "we should take over, let's get some guys and make me the king. I'll give you extra food" you wouldn't have any reason to join him because you already have what you need. And of someone started doing that everyone else would just beat him up for trying.

To me, like all utopian ideologies, I see it as more of a north star than a thing you could implement. Ask yourself if you have two choices, which is the less coercive one to get what your org needs done, and that's probably the way to go. It's nebulously defined just as Communism is nebulously defined.

There are good writings on it but I'm not a nerd so I can't think of any off the top of my head sadly.

people must be going nuts at antifa hq. wait until the president of antifa hears about this.

I addressed some of these points in my reply to twovests, but I wanted to address mutual aid here. I don't know what kind of mutual aid work you're doing, so if it's not what I'm about to describe, feel free to ignore this comment. But a lot of "mutual aid" that I've seen is usually something like giving out free groceries/supplies to hungry people, along with zines. And while it's a good thing to give hungry people food, ultimately it's just charity work, not a genuinely revolutionary activity. There's a really good video that talks about the difference between "red charity" work and organizing. My organization was stuck in the red charity trap for a while, and I tried talking to them about how we weren't actually building towards anything (including showing them the above video), but it took them a while to understand. Once they pivoted to tenant organizing, then they saw the difference between treating the symptoms of capitalism and attacking the disease itself, and they wrote a self criticism of their previous "mutual aid" work.

Not at all, I understood your intent, and I always appreciate principled criticism!

I appreciate your response; it seems like there were a couple of misunderstandings here that I want to clear up. I wasn't trying to say people should throw away their hobbies, far from it! Having a way to unwind and relax is healthy and needed. What I meant to say was organizing is more important than doing hobbies; so if a progressive person is spending 100% of their free time doing hobbies and 0% of it organizing, that is what I am saying is a problem. Because nothing will change if they keep hoping someone else will do the work. This post is aimed at those types.

The thing is, we can't be in every fight. You have to be in some fight, but you can't do anything if you try to be in every fight.

I agree with this, too; you can't solve all the world's problems at once. Since the post was aimed at people who aren't doing any organizing, I simply chose one example from the many problems we are facing right now, to illustrate that their "thoughts and prayers" are not materially helping. It was meant to spur them to action. I think it's very good that you are already helping out with several struggles, so don't push yourself too hard and burn out. Since you are doing what you're supposed to, the message wasn't directed at you.

If you said, "Look up your local tenants union" or "Get a pistol permit" or "Take a first aid class" or "Put money toward mutual aid rather than toward video games", then that might be something.

I mean I did say to join their local communist party (and if they're worth their salt, they will probably be doing something like tenant organizing), but I get what you're saying. Talking about what kind of organizing is the right thing to do is a whole other essay though, and I wanted to keep the message of this one simple. I guess I could've linked to this at the end, which does give some actionable first steps.

I also want to say, as far as peaceful protests go, I don't think they accomplish the goal most people think they do (i.e. persuading the government to change its mind on a certain issue). Because as long as it is peaceful, the government can simply ignore your demands. That's not to say they are completely useless, though, as they do bring together like-minded people. So they can be useful as a recruiting tool for an organization.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, thank you! I've definitely seen that kind of response before, and I get your need to vent about it, like holy shit.

I can relate to not being cut out for organizing, but I don't think giving up is the right answer either. It takes practice to get good at it. To quote Pearl, "Deep down, you know you weren't built for fighting, but that doesn't mean you're not prepared to try." I was awkward when I first started out, and made plenty of mistakes, but I had to keep trying to get decent at it.

As for what exactly to do, I can't give you a clear-cut answer, because it all depends on what it going on in your location. I think the first step is to figure out what issues the people are facing, and see which of them are suitable for a campaign. Maoists call this "social investigation and class analysis." Here are a couple good articles written about how to get started from scratch:

https://jiminykrix.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/some-suggestions-on-how-to-help-others-become-marxist-leninist-maoist-organizers/

https://libcom.org/article/building-solidarity-network-guide

Hi, apologies for the late response, I wanted to wait until my emotions were in check so that I could give a proper response. You're right that this post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular on jstpst, as I posted this on several different platforms. It's aimed at everyone in the US who could be doing something, but isn't. If you are doing something to fight back, that's good, and that's why I put the "this post isn't for you" bit in there. flabberghaster is right that this is sort of a vent post; I've been trying, more politely, to convince people to stand up and do something for years, and the response is usually lip service agreement, followed by no action. Which is a problem, when the situation requires mass action, hence my frustration and tone in this post. When I was a kid, if I refused to get out of bed, my mother would try politely coaxing me out first. But if that failed, she'd eventually have to resort to wringing out a wet washcloth over my head.

Regardless, I accept the warning, and won't post anything this aggressive again.

No more citizenship

No more gender

No more pie

Trump unintentionally ends the concept of citizenship, becoming the hero of anarcho-marxists worldwide

thanks for this <3

Yes…. Yes it is.

That said it is going about how I expected. The orders were already ready to go. I expect things will slow down briefly in a bit while everyone takes stock. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

IDK i read it as a vent post. Shit is so fucked and we do gotta get on it. But at the same time... like seriously what the fuck do we do? So I can understand the "FUCK YOU GET OFF YOUR ASS AND TRY TO HELP STOP THIS" vibe of the post but also that's not really helpful.

I want to be neither condescending nor dismissive. I am 100% with the OP in that things are very urgent. But i'm also like. literally what the hell are we supposed to do that we're not already doing?

I get a little annoyed at the advice you see to "organize." Ok what does that look like? I'm gonna what, start a union? How even. I tried that. I'm terrible at it. I felt like me being involved was just making things harder. What else can I do though? But also like, seriously shit is fucked, we gotta do something.

I'm torn. I'm freaking out. But I literally do not know what to do that would actually help.