alpha below zero

7/24/2019 Alpha Below Zero

1/26

1


2/26

2


3/26

3


4/26

4


5/26

From the translator

This pamphlet by the enigmatic title Alpha below zero - Nemesis and new anarchy,

appeared online almost a year ago in Greek language by Anarpsy project. Anarpsy is a

project about speech, theory and analysis in the context of social psychology, psycho-

analysis, psychodynamic approach and psychiatry through Antiauthoritarian - Anarchist

perspective, in order to analyse the reality of social and political phenomena.

Alpha below zero is the second Anarpsys pamphlet. (The first was the ELthnikismos

(!ELlenicNATIONALISM), - A contribution to the understanding of Greek national-

ism). Alpha below zero reflects a shift towards nihilism that exists into so-called neo-

anarchists. Nemesis refers to the equivalent FAI/IRF project about their sabotage to prod-

ucts of Coca Cola and Nestle and that one can find here:

http://interarma.info/2013/12/25/sabotage_coca_cola_nestle/

Inside a significant part of the Greek anarchist - antiauthoritarian movement has been

sprung in recent years an important, new consciousness of a continuous and substantial

involvement which largely has to do with the emergence of more class views and also a

trend towards the movement of solidarity economy and cooperative ventures. It is a

process that continues, constituting a new form unfolding a new social anarchism that

only will, in my opinion, have a good result for our movement. A new tradition in which

an important part of our movement has a decisive role.

But this is the one aspect of the whole matter. The other side is, in my opinion, complete-

ly the opposite, of different diametrically and, most often, a deadly hostile to the first.

There is a fair amount of so-called anarchists or anti-authoritarians, rejecting decisivelyto deal with labour and general social issues, oppose vehemently the participation of an-

archists in self-organised, direct democracy and organisational projects, like the ones that

have sprung up, as we said before, across the Greek territory, trying to grapple with the

immediate, daily, pressing problems, through neighborhood assemblies, autonomous spa-

ces, collaborative and direct democracy, in as much as wide forms.

A significant part of Greek movement continues to deal with projects and actions, which

not only ignore deliberately the entirely historically proven class nature of the anarchist

movement, but also spend themselves in entirely antisocial beliefs and actions, something

that raises questions and reasonable doubt as to whether this kind of collectivities and be-liefs should be counted as part of our broader movement.

5

5


6/26

Besides, many times, participants and supporters of these ventures have attacked directly

the movement of social anarchism, class struggle anarchism and their organisations, even

with rhetorics that can not be written.

The author of this pamphlet explores this "phenomenon, of "new anarchy" as its sup-

porters call it and, of course, refers to this trend that espouses important pieces of the

movement inclining towards anti-social stances, individualism, nihilism, a wooden atti-

tude against civilisation and so-called primitivism. Author's intention is not to put a ster-

ile and meaningless criticism of these trends above all, but to put the whole matter in

every aspect towards the beginning of a dialogue with the aim of defending and strength-

ening social anarchism.

Anarpsy publications are available online, are circulated through internet and are avail-

able without any restriction for every use by our movement.

Greek speaking readers can download both Anarpsy pamphlets from here:http://www.anarxeio.gr/publishers/view/anarpsy

Argyris Argyriadis, MD- PhD. is a Psychopathologist, Clinical Professor. Since mid

1980s he participates in the Greek and international anarchist movement and he is a

member of the historical Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

Dimitris Troaditis

(Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group, anarkismo.net)

November 2015

6

6
http://anarkismo.net/http://www.anarxeio.gr/publishers/view/anarpsy


7/26

ALPHA below zero.

Nemesis and "new anarchy"

In this electronic brochure will be an attempt to analyze the "new anarchy" in the context

of social psychology and psychodynamic approach. Our aim is to contribute to 'internal'

happenings at the level of ideas and how they are formulated into the modern

environment. The analysis is focusing on the ideas (generally), using events only as an

example (partially) and is not focusing on people (specially) in a personal level. Human

as an active subject takes place in the events, making his reality, according to the

information receives. But the goals and the means to achieve them are those differentiate

and form the action. The writing was not an easy task and the writer supports the

Historical Mass Anarchism, which broadly described as Social Anarchism. By this I want

to emphasize that in reality there are no phenomena in the analysis of social and political

neutrality that stem from an alleged "scientific" or "academic" objectivity. The effort was

towards opening and not exhausting the whole issue, presenting the interpretation as a

version as well as a starting point for thinking.

Argyris Argyriadis

Athens, January 2014

[email protected]

7

7
mailto:[email protected]


8/26

Introduction

In recent years it has been developed within the anarchist-antiauthoritarian "space" (allow

me this expression) a shift towards antisocial activity, individualism, nihilism, against

civilization and a peculiar primitivism, which is not simply the evolution of lifestyle

anarchism as it had been described by Murray Bookchin before, but something much

more.

By more "aggressive" and in essence more "activist" action of what they as described as

terrorism, the supporters of this "trend" (allow me to use this word as an interpretative

tool) organized into informal federations and use technology and electronic media often

quite hostile to implement comprehensive plans of action with names like Palm or

Nemesis, not only in a local but also in an international level. In determining these

actions they use several new or different verbal formulations to demonstrate that here it

happens something new (eg. new nihilistic resistance, anarcho-nihilist terrorism etc.) not

only by active carriers of this trend -which from now on we will call "new anarchy"- but

also from sympathizers of this trend during debate within the media counter-information.

Here the pronunciation of the support of "new anarchy" is in sharp conflict with the

anarchists of various tendencies which is making up the existing anarchy and especially

those who do not agree and do not welcome this new condition. Passion and compliance

is very strong on both sides. One rejects the other for their own reasons, but the main

argument is the aversion against society as well as the means above purposes as two key

features of what we define as "new anarchy."

Certainly, in the modern environment, the new dimensions which takes what we could

call as metropolitan violence, are not exhausted into a single analysis, but have beencharacterized by a relentless extreme passion. This is an illegible language that is strange

enough the political rationality of social anarchism. It becomes clear that the precursors

of this language do not belong to the thought or the traditions of social solidarity and

radical equality. A contributor to this is a reliance on Stirner, the preference in Nietzsche,

in Novatore and others who inspire a new-anarcho-individualistic nihilism. But what are

the root causes of this very controversial revolutionary heritage in the present

circumstances? Surely the simple condemnation is the easiest rhetoric. Even the most

wild, angry expression wants to say something, it sends a message through despair,

elitism or anti-social isolationism, draws attention to indicate presence, to stop being

invisible. In a world where the lack of meaning is predominant, even the smallest actionagainst an existing is an act of resistance. How liberatingly innovative is the center of the

debate?

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur*"* Whatever is said in Latin seems profound" to translate the header. The same can be

argued for the incomprehensible. In most cases, the new anarchistic reason is difficult and

8


9/26

incomprehensible to the outside observer. "Return critically on the table ideological

preconceptions on respect for human life (even enemies), who possessed some nuclei of

ALF internationally, in order to remove them.

I wonder what someone can understand by such a statement. Not only for its content, but

for the closeness of those who write it. Are they enemies or friends? Can allying with

them and how to avoid any danger? The key challenge is to understand what is psycho-

political balance of the authors in relation to what they aim to abolish. What comes out

clearly is war against everyone, and there are no exceptions or sympathies in the conduct

of it. Nemesis: The punishment imposed by a higher power to whoever violates the moral

laws, his nemesis.

Surely the continuous onslaught by capitalism and the recoil mass social movements led

to disastrous choices. The destabilization of society, made life empty and meaningless,

constantly subjecting people to humiliation by the very survival of a competitive process.

This applies whether you are a sociable, individualist or even an antisocial supporter of

the "new anarchy" as if you are not any of them, if you live in the given social historical

context.The current international economic system although despite situated in a broader

structural crisis, is more able to survive and be imposed rather to be collapsed if not break

the existing social relations. So, how they could outlined the way of action against this

form of society?

Far from romantic ideas and supplications, the new anarchist guerrilla identifies itself and

its actions as the art of the possible. Based on this, but not only, it becomes the meeting

point of anarcho-individualists with those against civilization,the eco-anarchists, etc.

Note: Throughout this work the "new anarchy" will be used with quotes aiming to

emphasize that this is a particular utterance of speech in how they define themselves and

construct their self-image.

Eliminating A"Certainly in the minds of supporters of the "new anarchy" anarchy is still class, but not in

the sense Proudhon and other theorists of the classic "old anarchism" set it up but as a

"natural" order, chaos and entropy.

Let's try to see and, above all, to understand the peculiar psychology of the "new

anarchy." I believe that the analysis on the psychology of neo-nihilist phenomenon will

help us to understand the problems of contemporary metropolitan status in general,

because, even despite claiming in somebody, in essence it is cut off from society and thepossibility of dynamically performative power to create and construct meaning and

ideology both citizens and rivals. The recourse against heteronomy is not a certainty for

the individual that leads to self-government.

During the 20th century, anarchism practical part of the broader socialist movement

competing with a bigger impact in parts of social anarchism as anarcho-syndicalists and

anarchocommunists.

9


10/26

Today the anarchist scene is so diverse and fragmented and the thing who can be called

an anarchist is disputed by all sides depending on every individual case, as appropriate to

the action and the content of each side. One thing is certain, that the "new anarchy" seeks

to detach from the old diverse mosaic of existing anarchist 'space' not considering them

effective, as well as from those which remain within the ideological spectrum of social

anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism as pillars of Historical Greater Anarchism, considering

them dead, outdated even as enemies. So much they specify to it that they do not want

solidarity from those who do not agree with their views. This is the finding of the "new

anarchy" as a negative control group compared with the existing anarchist "scene".

In this work, when we talk about the "new anarchy" we will refer mainly to the nihilistic,

individualistic, against civilization, anti-technology, primitivism, anti-social, eco-

anarchist tendency (I use that term by the sociological content of the word). Without

forgetting the insurrectional anarchism and the new urban guerrilla and the a-formalistic-

informal structure as a way of setting up the collectives of new anarchy.

"Even so, the area of "new anarchy" remains quite vague, so I will try to point out and

analyze an approximate manner as regards methodology. Moreover we will avoid usingthe word "comrades" for obvious reasons not to bring embarrassment nor be construed as

trying to integrate them into something that they consider do not belong.

Nietzsche, Nietzsche are you here?From the content analysis, external communication (Note: here mainly the inter-

individual and inter-group behavior of the individuals and groups as well as the

ideological level) through their announcements in the movement' means" as well as the

dialogue of those support the "new anarchy 'we can distinguish two main characteristics:

Superior-inferiority and de-socialization.Both characteristics lying within the psychological structure of the subjects that make up

this trend and we could consider as the central assembly point on the ideological level

beyond the obvious anarchist determining the political spectrum.

By Superior-inferiority (attention: We do not mean that there is some psychopathology,

therefor we do not use the word syndrome), we do not mean the same sentiment in

general and the double bonds which it may involve, for example, evident superiority

behaviors or latent inferiority across the spectrum of congenital characteristics can

construct group and individual imaginary "new anarchy." Eg. Elitism or non-self-esteem,

sense of power and grandeur, depressive or maniac tendencies, aversion to loss, guilt-

complicity, apathy - award and hate for himself.The continuous devaluation by "new anarchy 'of society in its ability to release and

interpretative demerits of collegiality versus a super-human can be determined as elitism.

This trend is quite evident towards anyone, anarchist or not, who embraces the collective

struggle in the traditional sense. Here is shown by the supporters of "new anarchy" an

extremely attacking phraseology with axiological characterizations against what "new

anarchy" defines "politically correct discourse" and refers many times not only in the

10


11/26

final subject which exists eg. exploitation by power (eg. worker) and the political group

who sympathizes (eg. anarcho-syndicalists - those in solidarity).

This is done in an effort to separate, on one side, of the established collective or mass

struggle and, on the other side, to prove ineffective. The rhetoric, in my estimation, is due

to the effort of insulation of emotion in order to emerge the superiority of individualistic

subject. Since there is a given aversion to identification with the concept of solidarity that

have participants competing movements with the problems of groups that appear as

oppressed, defeated, repellent or simply inferior.

The supporters of "new anarchy" tend to reach up to hate or at least envy anything to

seem weak, good or moral. The hate ideology and especially classical anarchism. In

addition, they hate generally enlightenment and culture as entities of evil and especially

industrial capitalism. The reasons invoked to justify this aversion is often so warlike that

"hate" seems closer to fascism than to anarchism, invoke the power or the will of the

person who would fit well in a vulgar unbridled capitalism rather than a free society.

Words and concepts such as mutual aid, solidarity, conformation, ideology and ethics

have no place in the vocabulary and values of "new anarchy." There is a great hateagainst social policy for the benefit of a superficial egotism excessive individualism. In

such point that necessity to meet the needs of all people in society is questioning. I

consider that this stems more from the inner feeling that pervades most individualistic

that can and should solve their own problems, as a result of mistrust or distrust of others

to meet their needs. The individualist feels competitive in the sense of solidarity because

deep down defeated selfish, Stirner argument one hand and undermined the Nietzschean

super-human.

In "new anarchy, we should admit that systematically reject science, logic an

Enlightenment ethic, and insist on relativization of selfishness and immorality as ananswer to evil and greedy capitalist culture that destroys human and nature. There can be

no doubt that the anarchist side does not deny or dispute the fact that the foundations of

scientific knowledge and its application have an ideological content and that the majority

used for the benefit of the market and domination. This objective reality is for everyone

and the challenging of social reality made by social movements and individual activists

critically analyze and radical ideological bases of knowledge. You do not have to be

against the knowledge to do this.

I think that this attack against these values is to cover the internal psychological needs of

the supporters of "new anarchy." It is about a channeling of a total hostility aimed at

meeting the need for power. Besides, this need they have never hidden before. That's whymany times when confrontation is often the phenomena of invocation selfishness,

promoting ego self and the ruthless competition Super-human versus the lower dynamics

of social solidarity and cooperation. This psyche creates people and behaviors intolerant

to those who believe that they lack the sense of power and those who do not believe they

have the ability to be strong about it and fall into collectives, is therefore impossible to

make people collective and social in their view. This representation creates resentment

11


12/26

through the feeling of superiority to ensure the structure of the assembly with the strong

and unique selfish self and thus ensure the notorious individualistic autonomy.

The anarcho-individualist can feel rather weak in a large organization or within the mass

movement simply because other than that the internal structure can be no other equal in

which coincides socially. The collective struggle is, by this reasoning, a masochistic

tendency of those weak.

Rather they prefer a different single match outside society (the traditional term of the

collective) who is strong, "effective", and not possessed by pity or symbolism, as moral

principles are lacking. Since morality is unthinkable to match ranks of "new anarchy",

this contributes, as discussed later in their de-socialization.

Since it seems that the choice of means and methods is often not reasonably determined

to avail unlike wreaking - because considers them all (except themselves) partners and

complicit with the regime so it claims to be trying to help them.

Reminds me of the cynicism by which the state of emergency considers that it is obliged

to provide health services to all citizens living in the country. For example, no one deniesas a content and action against a multinational soft drink company, however what would

be the most desirable outcome as a result of the action? Do not want to drink this drink

because they consider harmful or not to drink for fear of poison them? Everyone give

their own hostile, cynical, doctrinal or political answers depending on how it is stated that

the end justifies the means. In this respect the differences between "new anarchy" and

Social Anarchism is distinctly visible.

"New anarchy", according to our estimation, the ever-swelling social problems finds

fantastic, unique -like its ego- of ways to cause disruption but not solve them. Nietzsche

continues screaming adamantly listen...

In social psychology and in pedagogic science the term socialization generally is definedas a process and the result of the inclusion and integration of individuals into a

community. By this way the individual acquires the position in its whole and becomes the

same body of heritage establishing the social identity and ensure its continuity.

Regardless if you agree or disagree with the previous definition of socialization, you do

not need to take a stance because "new anarchy" already took a stance for you supporting

a moral nihilism, a position that denies any moral obligation towards society and does not

accept any moral value. Unlike Social Anarchists and classics such as Kropotkin, who

defend a more moral relativism which considers the behavior similar social and cultural

context in which it appears depending on the season, which is why morality as this code

is basis for judging whether an action is appropriate.

It is assumed that the moral code nowadays is so fractured that tends to moralizing,

hypocrisy and eventually immorality. What authorities require does not mean you have

the anarchists must accept and perpetuate it. Regardless if the inconsistency characterizes

every moment, that almost everyone come to a point that hate someone or something

sometime constitutes no excuse nor hate nor falling in the opposite case in a

insurmountable pacifism love to socialize. Surely the imposition of morality functionally

12


13/26

is a blatant oppression of religious type. It leads to feelings of guilt and self-deception in

order to explain and rationalize the mismatch of incentives that certainly does not fit the

anarchists and in each autonomous personality.

The same applies to those who choose the easy way of releasing and choose immorality

and non-binding on anyone other than themselves. I will use the following term de-

socialization to describe this non-binding which can be just as hypocritical pretense and

morality which the counter. In psychoanalysis several theories based on Freud and others

in the process of non-socialization but I think the more appropriate analysis for this

discussion focusing on aggressiveness and not the sexual.

As a result of this aggressive behavior, which is a product of de-socialization can lead to

isolation from low self-esteem in elitism, the feeling of weakness to feelings of grandeur,

transfer of guilt as complicity of someone else. If society creates the person ashamed to

frustrate expectations, then the opposition's refusal to society is a clear rejection

mechanism of social expectations. If someone is against society, then there is no hope for

the daily reconciliation and justify the emergence of selfish self as the only and self-

majestity.It would be wrong to claim even the greatest champion of morality that the majority of

people do not often deflected in individualistic, utilitarian practices, which could draw on

the moral nihilism: Telling lies, making low scale infringement, white lies and so on this

does not mean that rotates in the opposite direction against the system. Because

socialization is not just a matter of morality or immorality. We necessarily often have to

do things that society has defined for us in the majority because of heteronomy to become

psychological prisoners to things that do not suit us. Therefore there is individual and

social struggle. The withdrawal to the individual more consumer awareness (even if

people deny it) reminds too something else. Selfishness draws more on the characteristics

of a narcissistic personality, despite the sovereign of a Human. Both excessivesocialization (allegiance to collectivity, fascism) and the de-socialization (extreme

individualism) can also cause horror and atrocities on the ability of enforcement among

men. There is no guarantee to the contrary.

The de-socialized supporter of "new anarchy" should in his quest for up to escape from

all the psychological shackles of social and reclaim his personal autonomy through the

uprising. He prefers the concept of rebellion as a process, because it is not strong enough,

even if he is invoke for it, in order to revolt is a procedure that is part of social

transformation on the one hand, nor to the other use the same word used by social

opponents and having been deprived up and "ludicrous hippism" of individual

emancipation in the decade of 60-70. Modern supporters of "new anarchy live in todayand do not want old dead shapes.

Instead, he is getting, not necessarily as a single-issue, a value of existing moral society,

e.g. protection of nature, and blames society that collaborating in its perpetuation. At

another level he will denounce as incorrect fundamental human rights to which anarchists

involved, see e.g. solidarity, because they do not lead to total liberation. If reversed, "new

anarchy" in the basic symbiotic obligation that builds social movements that is an

obligation of human and society to care for others, he must attack against these values,

13


14/26

otherwise the individualistic argument have no reason to exist. So anti-institutions of

solidarity, self-education, and social centers are part of the conventional world to be

destroyed, because they only offer charity, etc.

The terroristic violence and activism of the disaster are part of the struggle for "total

liberation". When analyzing "new anarchy", thereby they are challenging the constraints

of capitalism, much more often, unsolicited. This is not surprising, but consistent with the

process of power, a key feature of nihilistic subject. The goal orientation and description

of the effectiveness of actions not only for communication to the outside but serves to

reinforce the establishment of the internal structure of the person if not substantiate the

confirmation of the transaction by setting the goal opponent (enemy), universal partial

achievement (set remain alive) and outcome (here is the effectiveness of the means

determine the value of the object) is particularly crucial as a process. Otherwise apathy

and failure would lead to forms of depression, clinical cases in their arguments are true

"new anarchy" have blamed each other for the mass line orientation by social anarchists

and their ineffectiveness of leading to the dependent stance.

In this argument against collectivity it is highlighted the weakness of society to today to

establish its potentialities for emancipation because these substituted forces do not offer

very little to the total liberation, rather than for the benefit of those who participate. In

this way you could say, structures that offer a therapeutic work can simply be made to the

brand, or even the militant anti-fascism as a form of social activism from a mere hostility.

I do not think that one would agree with this so far-fetched hypothesis. The solidarity and

collective struggle even with small limited results have shown that it is effective against

the enormous authoritarian machine.

In conclusion to this discussion for de-socialization. It is obvious that this massive

recourse to individualistic autonomy fails to understand that not all people are necessarysaves and good to want to participate in anarcho-nihilistic process for gaining strength.

This argument is so flimsy as the argument from the other side that people are sociable by

birth. I believe that people form their pro-society or pro-individual preference, each by

their own special way. Most gain self-esteem, confidence and sense of control of their

environment through not so much the power individually, but by a collective cooperation

as a result of socialization. The absence of meaning afflicting nowadays leads to a

peculiar alienation which internalizes the expectations which were lost in time of crisis

and a society of abundance came to an end and the first who died was the consumer as an

anthropological type in capitalist narrative unit autonomy.

Yet there are sufficient opportunities to be fostered the individualistic purchasing power

as a result of capitalist consumption. The consequences of the decline of civil rights in

individual and social level and the various "fees" of history, the narratives, left naked

human by the collective vision, and this need in a portion of youth to cover the "new

anarchy. And if invoked the force with rabies and conscience contradictory statements at

the opposite end as a result of the double bond can cause a sense of grandeur,

identification with the aggressor, as a result of depression anxiety, guilt, the repressed,

14


15/26

hostility, suicidal behavior, unsaturated hedonism and narcissistic personality. It is

evident that the articulation of speech several times through anti-social behavior and

misanthropy as ultimate bulwark of support and we have seen it in the texts (articles) of

supporters but mainly (and) those arrested in their attitudes to the court, together, to

solidarity. Hope this will be of some concern.

Wolf leader always willing for.... 1.good, 2.bad (there is always a choice)The current reality many times within the insurgents makes emotions as sources and not

as a solution of social problems. Especially in modern metropolitan environment this

defuse did not come several times by the activism as lifestyle. Anarchism is no exception.

The shift to the mysterious, primitive, natural because what we are called to live together

has no facet normal, from the society of the spectacle we spent in the society of prey.

Several supporters of the "new anarchy" invoke that while there is enough surplus to

sheep on the part of submissive society, lacking the insurgents wolves against the

current.

As much as we think that certainly primitive societies had neither stress nor crisis, and

that the human was creating less stress and were more satisfied by their life, no one candeny that survival in primitive societies was not easy, nor was it all rosy and magical. We

tend and ease to think that social and psychological problems will disappear as if by

magic (in its literal essence) if we return to primitive lifestyle. This argument is equally

naive to those who rely on that all problems will disappear immediately after the

revolution and the establishment of anarchy, because we will remove power. As

Anarchists we tent to believe that several problems of the authoritarian world will finally

end with the stop creating their cause but this is different and certainly no one can

promise to anyone an angelic world even much natural, primitive or antiauthoritarian be.

Surely overpopulation and urbanization, alienation of the human from nature, the cut-

throat pace of life in big cities and the removal from the community lifestyle are keycomponents of industrial society and capitalism. The Industrial Revolution significantly

increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population living in them in relation

to the suburban environment. The new conditions created new problems and I am quite

convinced that many of the mental illness is a result of lifestyle.

To ask a return to a more natural symbiotic lifestyle is completely different from the

generalized and vague invocation of return to the primitive way of life, destruction of

technology and even culture as a result of this. We can perceive the invocation to return

to primitive societies as a result of the natural world has provided a much more stable

frame due to the slow change and therefore a greater sense of security. I believe that

everything by the one or the other way society dominates on nature and not the opposite.How much we will mitigate this relationship is a goal of every anarchist tendency.

Just because changes can be made both in the use of technology in relation to the

economy, see de-growth, so I think that the level of proficiency is not only sufficient but

also ample. The late M. Bookchin believed it strongly when talking about radicalization

of nature, and for an anarchism after the era of scarcity. Although by the current crisis a

dominant narrative says that the affluent society has been finished and the output and

surplus indicators show that there is potential for the maintenance and development of all

15


16/26

enough to change example. In this we owe our belief that nothing is over and we refuse to

accept the postmodern theories of the end of history and accept the de-ideologication, at

least adjacent to the Social Anarchism. "New anarchy" refers to the denial of culture

because in my opinion is an easy spectacular rhetoric in articulation of speech but stays

until up there.

The reason is probably that the return to nature and especially in small communities

requires strengthening and not an individualizing collectivity. Unlike the metropolitan

system that identifies and de-personificates, smaller communities are forced instead of

selfishness to survive seeking the participation, cooperation and organic solidarity.

Especially the refusal of technology, the need for human cooperation is not just necessary

it is imperative.

We will all agree that regardless tendency that in the modern system of state of

emergency every change is forced upon us even by violence by the side of the dominant

forces. That is why the struggle for water, land and freedom for everybody and must

consciously make people deny the current lifestyle as a choice and not a return to the

ancestral past that is replete as anchoritism or because of cataclysmic event calledrebellion, revolution and leads to anarchy. Because quite simply no one is going to

choose the freedom to return back to hunters and collectors societies.And that will not

change with no nemesis as green and be.

Nowadays many people are beginning to realize what the authorities do against them

instead of them especially with the decline of the rule of the law and the shift to the

security state. This alone is not enough. The power is a coherent ideological structure that

creates, manufactures and constantly recreates social relations, to the point that the

individual resistance does not sound but is out of context and if individual exceptions

come to confirm the rule.

In this era of violent economic redistribution of wealth called crisis, our lives depend onthe decisions made by others, especially in the financial level. Nevertheless, even so the

life expectancy is several times greater than the corresponding human primitive era. This

is the result of culture technology, medicine, science and general knowledge are often

proponents of the "new anarchy" tend to underestimate. Several times between the

dialogues and the articulation of speech I felt like mental health worker is part of a

scientific ideological alliance against people (and society - this argument sounds and

other anarchist tendencies) and must accept collective responsibility when at the same

time denouncing the collectivise responsibility as authoritarian process by those who

summoned us. Let us establish a little our thought making it emancipated from the

generalized anti-epistemological nihilism. Not all knowledge, or science, pedagogy, etc.,is solely responsible for the enforcement of capitalism: It helps to maintain the system in

the same way contributes to the degradation of it. Now if the balance is tilted to the side

in favor of the system, this is a quantitative problem not solved nor the continued

depreciation of knowledge, denial of science or an uncompromising alternative

chermpalismo. Contrary to reclaim the forests and water, to liberate, to radicalization and

bring it even closer to nature for the benefit of everyone individually, but all total.

16


17/26

What we are experiencing today is related neither to insecurity nor the primitive human,

but by the imposition of a more or less security and insecurity (and here we have a double

bond, respectively) compared to that seen as 'normal' not for human beings, but on the

subject of citizen or not, see eg. the case of HIV-positive drug dependent women. In

many cases today's society allows verbal aggression individually but collectively

suppress militancy (see the case of the 15 antifascists). It enables as an individual and

collective right to fear, we can individually angry even re-sent watching TV, but no

collective descent of citizens on the street for protest. This alone shows that the argument

of individualism is not only not attempted to power but many times and fair in its efforts

to weaken the mass struggle.

Generally speaking, the outcome of today's society, "new anarchy" is a pessimistic

perception of things. So Babis Papadimitriou is. The behavior is not only regulated by the

government or the authoritarian mechanisms. On the way back to nature even in

primitivism there is no legal restriction, but this has not reduced the most of the internal

migration to the metropolitan center, either now in a period of crisis created considerable

decentralization. That no one wants to do does not mean it cannot. Just a matter of choiceas to do good or to do the abominable. Its culture and ethics that most often play an

important role, not only the nature only.

In primitive societies, in general, no one can doubt that life is in phases. Quite often with

distinct rites procedures for switching from one to another. This is a socialization phase

and not an individual choice. The aging of the man in a hunting tribe as a process that

there is no sport or hobby but to ensure the community of all meat, and at this point there

is no nugget individualistic choice. Then, the next step is to start a family and here there

is no excuse put forward several people today who claim the law to being a bachelor.

Because, unlike the narrative lonely wolves, wolves are born and live in herds with

evaluative system and hierarchy. Alone remains a de-socialized entity The Wolf man(figure attractive but tragic in solitude), but this is only in the realm of literature, field like

for emotional glamor in several anarcho-nihilists.

Homo hominy lupus?Among the views of Hobbes and Leviathan should something be selected for human and

nature? That is believing that is by nature a cruel and evil animal without compassion for

his fellow man, the possibility of man removed option beyond the selfish behavior. The

concept for "the benefit of mankind" does not seem to correspond to the "new anarchy" if

there are only selfish people, then you might as well apply a Thatcherite dictum that there

are societies only people from the socio-biological theory of E. Wilson on with humannature and the famous drawing of mammals, but this leads to eugenics normalization.

Human nature is intertwined with the possibility of freedom. For the proponents of the

"new anarchy" important degree of personal freedom in connection with the editorial

collective guarantee guaranteed rights.

By this way according to the rhetoric of the "new anarchy" and because of this condition

there is a steady trend of domination based on technology as a result of the Industrial

17


18/26

Revolution and concerns the strengthening of the system at the expense of individual

freedom. This is partly true in these times of crisis and at intervals, but the system always

finds new ways and psychological contracts to strengthen it without having to curb civil

liberties. Using technology helps to achieve this, but it does not confirm the rhetoric that

people are anxious to offer total liberation, they can do it by offering the refusal of

technology, have more hope for the success of the project, since this type society would

collapse or would give very different results than expectations in the eyes of the external

observer. No evidence sufficient to conclude that the total liberalization and technological

progress are two incompatible concepts. It is the use of the power that makes the

enforcement mechanism technology like social movements to make it part of the release.

This is because although many times we see the outcome as inevitable, in fact it is not. It

is simply the result of arbitrariness on the altar of profit and the market.

That the system should be competing controlling human behavior to work is not an

argument itself that the natural propensity of human is social cannibalism. Nor does it

mean that the power and selfishness are the counterpart. Plus the stranglehold makes the

life of many people simply unbearable. As a result of this human and especially youngpeople often feel a sense of weakness along with a lack of hope and meaning in life in

general, that we explain in more detail previously.

The system alienates by forcing people to become more and more distant from a more

symbiotic behavior pattern. This imposition however it is not elevate them as

accomplices in maintaining the status quo. If we accept this would be like accepting that

victims rather than the perpetrators to blame for the current situation. Because of the

pressure for regulation of obedience of the people in a more obedient citizen there is a

gradual increase of people who are within the integrated social sphere and outside the

continuous shrinking social welfare programs.

Juvenile metropolitan gangs delinquent micro-saboteur, people who drop their education,and anarchistic objectors easily led into this situation more than the violent exclusion

rather than through conscious opposition to the system or the expectation of "new

anarchy". The debate is now resumed.

In Acid watersIt is obvious that as anarchists of the old or new calendar believe that capitalism is not

improved but overturned. This definitely needs to come a revolt not necessarily armed

but necessarily violent that other than the individual needs of conflict and transformed a

revolution that will create new syntactic structures and radicalize people causing a

widespread and fundamental change in the nature of society. This objective is not part of"new anarchy" or at least the part that embraces anti-socializing.

There is a belief in a part of those serving the world of "new anarchy" that because the

revolution is impossible especially after 2008, the insurgency is more legitimate. This is

not entirely because the revolution is a general process that is broader and more long-

term goal for social transformation, so it can inspire and engage more than an uprising

which does not inspire but relies both on randomness of the event and the emotional

18


19/26

subjects participating in it. If he can not to erect new syntactic structures in danger simply

fizzled when the first emotions pass and finished subsequent expansion, fizzles like a

carbonated beverage that remains open.

History so far has shown that despite its imperfections the uprising from a social

revolutionary movement has the potential to provide a collective imaginary and ideal

where people would be willing to endanger and make great sacrifices just because of the

promise for creating a completely new and different world.

The uprising and actions based on the fear of painful consequences, except restriction is

assumed that you are unsuccessful because they actively take people with them simply

force them into an instrument that will stop just found a new source of fear or simply just

a state of Deus Ex Machina confirmation to maintain the legitimacy of the constitution

and may bring a process of more people becoming conservative as a result of the former

fear. Never fear alone did not act as a mechanism for liberation, you need the element of

hope for a new best condition.

Social movements believe in mild convert people and holding more symbolic upgradedarmed violent actions when necessary, but never with a purely aim targeting people and

especially the general population. The reason is that they want to gain them on their side

breaking the existing social relationship that prevailed when the revolutionary fever

resulting from the initial uprising that people are willing to undergo even the most

incredible hardships for the sake of the revolution that is now utterly own case. This was

clear from both the French and the Russian Revolutions, but even more pronounced by

the Spanish anarchists who invested 100 years of struggle to reach the raid in the sky in

July 1936. They never thought people as enemies but instead conducted an

uncompromising war against the institutions in this endeavor. Something similar happens

with the Zapatistas but I think these are well known and need not be extended. Notablywe can say that all these cases there was only a minority of the population that was ready

to commit to the end and reach the opposite bank to freedom, but this active minority was

really enough to force in society and attracted yet more even tacit acceptance.

This mass revolutionary narrative does not seem to be very interesting for supporters of

"new anarchy." They prefer to spread fear through terrorist actions dubious or highly

specialized targeting multiple times on targets, without caring for the conversion of

people who are this mass called society. Several times they refuse even the dialogue with

those who disagree or do not fully embrace their ideas. This is a clear anti-dialectical

process. If the state of emergency imposed by special legislation, similar is the

application of the act of "new anarchy" through self-appointment, that blows where somedecided to act for some without asking and then intimidate them that if they do not agree

to this how will suffer the consequences, since this (action) is the only - objective nature

and not spared neither knows enemies or friends. So all convicted as guilty or complicit.

Of course the self-image and self-perception of their own for the method, actions and

choices are just our way, nothing else. Then have the statement of faith to assume with

statements from the wider circle of sympathizers - supporters of "new anarchy" that these

19


20/26

actions have enough imagination and cause shock to the system. This essentially is a

distortion, a digression from the essence of innovation actually need to be sustained in the

struggle against power. But practically the invocation is "turquoise", ie the intersection

can bring the gap in the existing. As a phrase sounds very grand, but says nothing? It just

- it says it does not mean anything. This is of course not the privilege of the "new

anarchy" and the lifestyle anarchism, anarchy (all voltages), the counter power, the left,

etc. to be just.

Returning to the argument of pressure in the system, all organized societies engaged by

one way or another pressure on their own nationals for the sake of the functioning of the

social organism. The type and intensity varies from season to season and from society to

society depending on the financial and psychological context and ideology to be imposed.

When the limit of human endurance and overcome been broken social cohesion, the

crime, the difference, depression and other problems psycho-emotional cause deficiencies

in its operation. I will not disagree that the history of capitalism is full of deficiencies and

a simultaneous possibility of substitution aimed at imposing the respective normality.

No need to imagine a society which makes their nationals in constant conditions ofmisery and sell their drugs, spectacle, sports, or other substitutes to alleviate their misery.

This live daily and wildest today in times of economic and social crisis. Not only drugs

that tease the mind, advertising, consumerism (oldest), the resurgence of nationalism and

fascism in today, are some methods that evolve, grow or come out of the drawer as the

case from the domination of the control of human behavior.

Fear is everywhere, to the point of talking clinically for a time of generalized social

phobia. The media contribute to it and are the ideal instrument for the spread of moral

panic. Polls influencing public opinion, the entertainment industry that produces terror,

sex and violence. Now the pressure minimizing, anxiety, distress, dissatisfaction and the

deadlock of the everyday are annihilated. The lack of meaning in conjunction with thedepreciation of labor and weakness diversion time beyond the prolonged fixation for idle

hours creating the individual greater conflict between him and his world. Modern man

from being busy now turned into a bad entity as a (n) erg and survival weakness

contributes to making nervous, anxious, and irritable. Has lost tolerance. I believe that

many of these features contained subconsciously as starting points in antisocialism and

people hating "new anarchy" which reacts to behavioral stimuli even more aggressively.

The man, according to these conditions, facing or behave in conflict with the system and

with himself, which is why the internal structure of his ideas must have a coherent

structure both for himself and for others.

We saw earlier that de-criminalization putting the person in a peculiar war of all againstall. The conflict with the system refers to a battle with a force much stronger, stronger

and coordinate with respect to the same (person); if he cannot conquer, to simply destroy

or flee to escape, the burn, trauma and self-defeated behavior seem to be the only

possible defense.

Violence becomes a relief mean not necessarily for political purposes only. Take for

example the family violence and more specifically child abuse. (This allusion can be

done in parallel and for anarchist). It is obvious that this kind of violence is not

20


21/26

acceptable in any culture. Torturing a child for any reason deemed least odious and

abominable. But still there are still voices that argue that the beating and not just for

example verbal abuse when used as part of a more 'reasonable' and consistent disciplinary

system cannot be considered as abuse. This exophthalmos rationalize violence parental

consent is only the dominant authoritarian alibi for the imposition of extinction.

Let's look closely at the example of the turtle: As you go along the street you meet a turtle

without a shell (shell). Suddenly you hear a voice calling you to answer the question: If

you think turtle is naked or homeless. Here one can observe the ideological manipulation.

First a turtle without its shell is dead. So the question is highly misleading because

putting the issue outside of the framework of the general situation making the perpetrator

innocent (because someone deliberately tortured and led to death). Instead, it shifts the

responsibility to the victim. The choice of a naked turtle is focused on ethics and the

homeless in the socio-economic aspect. We will however reiterate that the turtle is neither

naked nor homeless, but DEAD!!! This option was not even put as a possibility. This is

the power of authoritarian discourse to create and direct the reality. The discussion can becontinued if the turtle is complicit or partly responsible for her death, style, prestige and

power that carries voice, etc. In place of the turtle may well be a seropositive, an

immigrant, even a political or social idea. I hope I was understood.

This reasoning is simply misleading because it separates the form from the content: As

there is a good domestic violence -in the essence that admonish- so there is a good and

legitimate state repression. Therefore the assessment of existence of child abuse and not

only finally is depending on how it produces the behavior that makes a person fit or not

with the existing system of society. Getting to a point where the word "abuse" touches

everything but not the power and whoever exercises. A similar netting is unacceptable by

anarchists as individuals as groups, as a current and as a movement.Because of the generality of the intensity of the state and capitalism we should not allow

the alienation, loneliness low self-esteem, depression, hostility, juvenile delinquency,

rape, intimidation, abuse, become part of the action methods us. Although and

unfortunately the enemy is not imminent has already been inside. It is a different thing to

use counter-violence as a defense to the violence of the state (this means the slogan

violence to violence of the authority) and not to use the instruments of opponent to face

political corruption, racial hatred, fascism and generally not changed in another group

hatred with "anarchist" wrapper. The dialogue with the proponents of "new anarchy" and

even if they refuse it, is an ideological and a moral conflict: for freedom of choice

(without taking of costs in mind) from one, in favor of freedom of choice does not comeagainst life as a value on the other.

The current situation is not the result of chance. It is nothing of the result of the

conditions imposed by the State to the retreat of collective demands of institutional

illegitimacy against the society and the individuals boxing is now alone and naked.

Crisis is the forcible redistribution of wealth, creating a new stage in capitalist history. In

the new era dawning sovereignty trying to implement the following dystopian condition:

The institutions are not adapted to serve people. Unlike the people will adapt to the

21


22/26

demands of institutions. That democracies by the state, for the state and to the state. As

the emergency regime intensifies repression to enforce uses health or even humanitarian

excuses, eg sanitary bombs etc.

The system always creates ways of relaxation in the soccer fields for youth, self-help

groups, civil and ecclesiastical charity solidarity. Like the TV, does not impose them,

their use is "voluntary" and optional. No one requires from the other to consume, to adopt

a fashion, or watch TV in criminal terms. Instead, is imposing it to them creating new

social relations that underlie this dependency. The return to the nature through extreme

sports, o Indian meditation, psychotherapy trendy, the reality show, even the metropolitan

apolitical violence are escape mechanisms. We all complain about the happenings but

nobody closes the TV, or stop consumption, lifestyle etc.

This is not only because of habit but because of social relationship that had been imposed

the habit. To be a change in behavior need someone to decide taking another example.

Totalitarianism uses fear, freedom uses persuasion. Even if this has not have quick

results. Consumerism as an ideology will not be stopped because some are afraid to

consume, simply there will be a temporary change in behavior which will return back tonormality and with greater intensity after some time. Therefore, I do not really consider

effective a way of action which requires phobic acceptance. The struggle for freedom

seeking people who seek it and not those who are afraid. Those who believe in the

adoption of fear adopting totalitarian ideals without knowing it. Fascism always relied on

fear to others. So we have to convince them to come with us and not them extort or

intimidate them to do something they actually do not want or do not want it.

We do not think that one has in mind a society in which there will be an endless

competition based on the strength (not necessarily physical). Or maybe not? The ultra-

liberalism asks for an unconditional liberalization. The same freedom are aiming also

anarcho-capitalists who are also inspired by individualism. Such a society in which aperson can satisfy his/her passion for power can only achieved by starting destroying

large numbers of people, populations and local cultures and homogenizing those who

survive. This as a potentiality is as inherently repugnant and cannot alleviate misanthropy

even if they been enriched with tones of Stirnerist selfishness or Nietzschean

superman's will or natural lifestyle and primitivism. The destruction of the existing

system should have a plan for something better, not just destruction and what he

encountered. The rest is just dystopias and it will not follow anyone, I believe that not

even those who rely on them.

Despite revolutions so far did not manage to liberate the people, yet the passion for

individual empowerment and social liberation remains. To gain an idea or a socialmovement even a rudimentary support, should have a positive ideal. The invocation of

"new anarchy" in favor of selfish person already exists under capitalism the consumer's

narrative enrichment gaming, good marriages, in which people can buy on-autonomy

with economic power. The narration is in these times of crisis has been overcome by

leaving the metropolises of the world crowd free from work and exemplary asks other

allegiance to not become those so.

22


23/26

The same applies to the unconditional return invoked in nature, and generally anti-

technology this expression instead. Most people would argue that nature is beautiful and

seductive. This is an urban - tourist narrative. A farmer would have a totally different

view. And for him the metropolitan life can be looked beautiful and seductive than the

daily toil that has rural work. Primitivism gets back to nature and converts it into a

utopian pipe dream, especially when combined with the anti-social stance and the denial

of civilization. Many would like to return to such a situation. To eliminate the negative

and destructive consequences of industrial society does not mean that to win one should

not sacrifice the other. This is a narrative that is often invoked and authority in trying to

justify something as inevitable. The popular saying "we cannot have our cake and eat it",

does not mean that we must choose or pie or dog. Cooperation and symbiotic mutualism

is another option otherwise danger post-composed as "primitivism or barbarism,

primitivism is barbarism" which is not entirely valid.

Most people today are confused about their own future, their children, and society and

generally where things lead. Introversion and the transfer of responsibility to themselves,the complicity of "together we ate 'creates a great mental conflict. The promise of

prosperity in exchange for political action led to several award, apathy and not being able

to think neither seriously nor too complex compared with difficult or obscure topics.

Hence the use of easy and populism has significant momentum: One or the other, and we

simply cleaned. Certainly any political ideology or movement should be addressed to all

and not only to those who are more "intelligent", "thinking", "reasonable" or more

"workers", "farmers", "revolutionaries" from others. The power constructs identities and

roles, the rebel movements must build - jointly shape consciences. Towards cultivation

arguments, solve problems, choice of methods and goals, processing ambiguities and

inconsistencies that they can cause so the distortion of facts to a single truth - our ownand the extreme language is an obstacle to communication, which is why in our opinion

should be avoided.

If the spread of the ideas diffusion with the most simplified form, in which missing verbal

content(if you missed the point I wanted to challenge you) and arbitrary language then

maybe help people to see more clearly things. Again, the key word is input and not

enforced. The cheap, phobic and extreme propaganda of the transaction (and not only)

has only short-term success. The ideas to succeed must take root as a social relationship,

it takes dedication and not instability change attitudes when it appears some better

propaganda as a means for the benefit of another same or inferior idea. Surely invoking

emotional particular value in the first days of the uprising, but this is an exception.It is a fact that even shortly before the final outcome of the struggle we do not expect as

revolutionaries, let alone as anarchists, that we will have the majority on our side.

Instead, we will be on the side of those who revolt aimed at freedom and to contribute to

the even greater radicalization of them. Yet this again does not ensure that they will

choose our own way. Social struggle is a conflict between dominant and dominated to

stop sovereignty. When this conflict reached a point that only occur between the

revolutionaries and the people, then this strategy only leads to a mutual extermination

23


24/26

among the oppressed in the interests of authority The strategy to condemn as jointly

responsible the consumers of a brand because they have consumerist habits does not

contributes towards radicalization. Instead, to convince them that they have been victims

of advertising, marketing and generally the capitalist lifestyle that destroys nature and

local communities would be more meaningful. At least as strategic, social anarchism

chooses war with the institutions - peace with people. "New anarchy" chooses to against

them all. Many believe that this is problematic because de-symbolize action and reinforce

the doubt and fear. Feelings which manufactured by authorities, been preserved by it and

create every time its perpetuation. If we want to over through authority we must not

become rulers and should not identify with the aggressor. We do not become like the

monster, do not become the same monster. This is the essence of the anarchist ideal

indeed? It is certain that the individual and social liberation will not occur accidentally or

spontaneously because human nature is what it is. The truth however is that bullying will

not speed up the whole process, the delay only.

The borderline: together or separatedThe choice as a dilemma resembles the previous example of turtle. Anyone who believes

that it is not or does not want to be related to Anarchism requires neither suffer nor

suppressed. But truth and reality that the "new anarchy" needs the "space" and its

structures regardless of whether the abhors.

The serial presence of supporters of "new anarchy" especially in public counter-

information (eg Indymedia) has on several occasions polarized the situation rather

facilitates the ideological ferment. It is not so much dogmatic way of refusing to identify

anything as old, social, etc., which almost seems to distort the original aims of the

Historical Foundation of the Anarchist Movement. I believe that through the aspirations

of the supporters' new anarchy "is not the hegemony, but must be recognized as equalpartners (reminiscent of the effort of psychiatry to convince that is equal and worthy

medical epistemological). Proponents of the "new anarchy" as rebellious children

worldwide not only power but also the regularity of Social Anarchism symptomatic

superiority-inferioriority. Superiority-inferioriority is the double bond division between

the self-image of himself with the external transaction acceptance or refusal of this

identity by others. Because, no matter what rely expressing this is another identity

regardless whether the refuse. Compliance and rigid belief are inherent.

To be able to stand in that the internal (inside the movement) war between all, should

show an uncompromising attitude. "New anarchy" should appear consistent with the Ego

and inconsistent with others with moral or social conditions. "New anarchy" asindividualistic approach wishes neither to unite people, not their worlds. This would

seemed societal.

Although "new anarchy" is the rhetoric of anti-compliance has religion, for the sponsor of

the "new anarchy" nihilism plays the role psychological constitution as meaning almost

the same extent that performs religion or at least the ideology respectively. It needs to

believe in the basic constitution of identity and reasons for mental economy and defense.

24


25/26

Since the "new anarchy" is justified in itself need not be considered ethical or socially

correct, nor can compare and consider not only right but also a egotistic possibility to

impose on others.

"New anarchy" by this way becomes a totalitarian authority. Often anti-dialectical.

Anything against the beliefs, the ways and means of "new anarchy must be nullified

verbally and even physically, reaching and intimidation of dissidents.

Theoretically narcissism having for their image and hedonism for the quality and

dynamics of their actions comes as an internal suppressor to limit the thinking and

behavior because of their de-socialization. In combination with the feeling of inferiority-

superiority, they seek strength, not to fight in commonplace ways other traditional - dead

shapes of Social Anarchism or anarchy because they consider it as a moral impasse and

thereby seek to impose their refusal to others. According to Erie Hofer, "The means to

stop a mass movement is often replaced with another movement. A special and strange

substitute of mass movements is immigration. Migration offers something of him who

hopes to find a disappointed in the mass movement, ie. A change and the possibility of a

new beginning."New anarchy" appears as a departure from traditional anarchism. Erie Hofer points out

that "the discontent is perhaps greater when misery is bearable when things are so

promising, apparently, a better situation. Resentment seems to increase with the reduced

distance from the desired purpose. This applies equally whether we approach the end or

away from him. "Once those circled A did because they believed that "Anarchy is order"

and that separations destroy Organic Solidarity between people. Today the A (anarchism)

for some need to escape from nihilism that has surrounded. Some seek to breathe again

and organized, unlike others want to migrate to a "new anarchy." Good journey. Nothing

is over yet...

"The paradox is the question of Chaos"

Chaos and culture

"The enemy of Chaos is order. But the enemy of the Order is an enemy of Chaos"

Theory of Social Entropy, Gregor Markovic

25


26/26

alpha below zero

Documents