portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

alternative media | political theory

Insurrectionary Anarchism

Insurrectionary Anarchism

In english:

In english:


In english:

In english:









In english:

don't forget this important video too! 10.Apr.2012 15:15


from the right 10.Apr.2012 16:23


anarchists need to read the author boston t. party. he's a little fucked up about some things, but he's a great resource. find his books at gun shows.

OG 10.Apr.2012 16:34


Don't forget Willful Disobedience and Killing King Abacus!

important insurrecto checklist 11.Apr.2012 08:38


? 11.Apr.2012 14:48


What does insurrectionary anarchism have to do with manarchism? Only bro's can be insurrectionists? Or i@'s are manarchist because they're critical of identity politics?

insurrectionist 11.Apr.2012 16:17


i@'s are not necessarliy critical to identity politics

this is classic indymedia hilarity 12.Apr.2012 11:06


Someone makes a post about an issue. Anarchism, in this case, but it could be anything.

a few decent comments roll in, and then everyone brings their own pet issue.

"what about veganism!" "what about gender politics!" "what about blah blah blah"

Shut the fuck up already. Everything isn't about you and your issue.

nice try, rex 13.Apr.2012 12:18


Uh, nobody mentioned veganism in this thread, so, um, wtf are you talking about? Sounds like you have a bone to pick.
And, yes, "gender politics" was brought up in relation to insurrectionary anarchism. Why? Because it is relevant. I don't believe that "blah blah blah" was brought up. As mentioned, veganism also was not brought up. The only issue brought up was what you referred to as "gender politics," and you rushed to label it as "hilarity" and some person's "issue." Again, it sounds like the subject of "gender politics" is a sore spot for you. Well, gee, sorry. I hope you can deal with it. If not, well, then, as suggested by (A) - not me btw - in the discussion section below, "gtfo."

wait... 13.Apr.2012 14:14


rex has a point. whats the connection between i@'s and gender/identity politics? the video and checklist don't ever talk about insurrection.

i@ and gender politics 13.Apr.2012 15:52


The connection is that some people who emphasize i@ as a tactical approach to social change have a tendency to trample over others and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Often times it is womyn and socialized feminine people who are treated as unimportant or expected to be subservient to i@ anarchists. Also, some i@ anarchists see roles or tasks that society expects womyn to fulfill as unimportant or beneath them thus reinforcing oppressive societal gender roles and norms. These could include spending time with children, providing and preparing food, providing and maintaining a home, cleaning so that filth and disease are kept at bay, and all sorts of other tasks that can go unnoticed. Yes, attack the State, but don't oppress your comrades in the process.
Certainly this isn't true of all i@, but it is common enough to need to be addressed.

well... 13.Apr.2012 23:26


rex is right. you got something to say ((A)) but it doesnt help your argument to be yelling it here. its not @i's you got a problem with. no, you got a problem with men. maybe all the men you know are @i's.

Identity politics GTFO 14.Apr.2012 01:16


Seriously, what a ridiculous generalization. First of all, there are quite a few women who consider themselves i@'s - wonder what they would think of your analysis? Second, how are these criticism's specific to men that subscribe to i@? Seems to me that those are fairly common complaints against men of any political stripe - are you arguing that syndicalists or some other strain of anarchists are somehow less patriarchal? That seems ridiculous on it's face. Call out manarchism, fine - but to associate it with insurrectionism is subscribing to the exact same patriarchy which defines women as weak and submissive.

! and i@ 14.Apr.2012 09:14


What a boring flamewar.
So "!" concludes that I have a problem with all men. That is so stupid that I won't even bother to respond.
"i@" asserts that I have made a ridiculous generalization, even though I explicitly said that my statement was based on observation, and NOT true of all i@. Oh - and there are womyun i@'s too! So what? There are also gay Republicans. Again, my problem is not with i@ in general, but with the attitude and behavior of many people, not all of them men, who call themselves i@. "i@" continues by showing that patriarchal bs is present in other anarchist schools of thought as well. I would say that that's probably true. Are i@ more prone to patriarchal attitudes? I don't know. Does it matter? The patriarchal attitudes amongst i@ folks needs to be addressed regardless of what other schools of anarchist thought are doing. Sorry, "i@," but concerns about patriarchy in our anarchist community can not be just written off as ridiculous.
"i@"'s last point is so muddles that it is hard to respond to. Calling out patriarchy amongst i@ is the same as being patriarchal? If you assume that I believe that womyn and people other than cis-gendered men aren't i@s, then maybe I could see your point. However I never said that and don't believe that. Insulating i@ from critique of patriarchal tendencies, however, IS patriarchal, and will undoubtedly have the effect of keeping people away who would otherwise engage in i@ thought and action.

wow 14.Apr.2012 12:20


no criticism of what you have to say about patriarchy ((A)), its just the wrong place. yes now the rest of this thread is all about you, however the way it happened makes you look crazy. your not listening or responding to what anyone else is saying. just charging ahead regardless of anybody else gives anti-patriachy a bad name for everyone. but why let reason stand in the way, right?

@WOW 14.Apr.2012 18:20


What do you expect? Theres a picture of an assault rifle posted by someone who more likely than not has never held yet alone used one. And although I love me my insurrection, at our most defiant, our most idealistic, we dont even come close to insurrection. More self hype. Im an Anarchist, but this sort of mentallity is crap. You want genuine insurrection, go to the A.LF. posting on this outlet. As of the moment thats the only revolutionary posting by ANYONE!!! We do a better job of talking/acting without this crap. The internets a good means of communication, but after its served its purpose only the tools are left talking the talk.

Boring 14.Apr.2012 23:41


The issue is that unless you're trolling every anarchist thread with this manarchism shit, then it's meant to make some kind of statement about i@'s specifically. Honestly, I don't see the connection, unless it's meant to argue that those who strike out and attack are acting "masculine" and somehow patriarchal, which frankly, is bullshit.

To the manarchist-apologists 17.Apr.2012 22:42


You can call it trolling, you can cry that insurrectionary anarchists are being discriminated against, you cna complain that this is not the right place for discussion, and you can bury your head in the sand, but people are noticing that there are a number of people calling themselves "insurrectioanry anarchists" that are putting themselves on a vanguardist pedestal and treating other anarchists like dirt. It comes as no surprise that some commenters avoid the issue of patriarchy in our movement, specifically in insurrectionary anarchist circles, and even attack me for bringing it up. But no matter - I knew that they would be there and didn't expect them to listen anyhow. Their comments serve the purpose of illustrating some of the attitudes that can be problematic in egalitarian social relations. My comments are for the rest of the readers, and they can make up their minds for themselves what to think.

In response to "i@" assertion that my criticism of insurrectionary anarchism is that it is too "masculine:"
Well, yes, that would be bullshit. However, that is not at all what I wrote. In fact, I wrote "Yes, attack the State, but don't oppress your comrades in the process. Certainly this isn't true of all i@, but it is common enough to need to be addressed." and "Again, my problem is not with i@ in general, but with the attitude and behavior of many people, not all of them men, who call themselves i@." Could I be more clear? How about Bash Back! as an example of an insurrectionary practice that isn't neccessarrily "masculine."

In solidarity, for attack against all oppression