An old article

I'm trying to clean things up a bit, and make it easier to find things. Here's an article from Bey on the subject of "What is anarchy?" It was posted before with other stuff. Now I'm posting it on it's own

Questions and Answers on Anarchism

Hakim Bey

What is an Anarchist?

The Prophet Mohammed said that anyone who greets you with "Peace!"
must be considered a Moslem. Similarly, one may consider all who
call themselves "anarchists" to be anarchists (unless they're police
spies);--that is, simply, those who desire the abolition of
government. For the Sufi, the question, "Who is a Moslem?" holds
virtually no interest. They ask, rather, "Who is this Moslem? an
ignorant dogmatist? a hairsplitter? a hypocrite? Or is this one who
rather strives to experience knowledge, love, and will, as one
harmonious whole?"

"What is an anarchist?" is not the right question. The right
question is: "Who is this anarchist?" an ignorant dogmatist,
hairsplitter, hypocrite? One who claims to have smashed all idols,
but who in truth has just erected new mental shrines to fresh spooks
and abstractions? Does this one try to live in the spirit of
anarchy, of not-being-ruled/not ruling-- or does that one merely use
the rhetoric of rebellion as an excuse for unconsciousness,
resentment and self-immiseration?"

The petty theological squabbles of the anarchist sects have grown
inexcusably boring. Instead of asking for definitions (ideologies),
ask: "What do you know?"--"What are your true desires?"--"What will
you do now?"--and--as Diaghilev said to the young Cocteau--"Amaze
me."

What is Government?

Government may be seen as a structured relation among humans whereby
power is unevenly distributed, such that the creative life of some
is reduced for the aggrandizement of others. Thus government
operates in all relations in which the members are not considered as
original partners in a structure of mutuality. Government can be
observed therefore in social units as tiny as the nuclear family
or "informal" as a chance meeting of several neighbors in the street-
-whereas government may never even touch certain much larger
organizations such as a rioting mob or crowd of hobby enthusiasts,
Quaker meetings or free Soviets, banqueters or benevolent societies.

Human relationships which begin with such original partnerships may
become, through the process of institutionalization, subject to a
decay toward government--a love affair may turn into marriage, a
little tyranny of the miserliness of love; or else an intential
community, founded freely to make possible some way of life desired
by all of its members, finds itself ruling and coercing its children
with petty moral rules, empty husks of once glorious ideals.

So the task of anarchy is never done for more that a short time.
Everywhere and always human relations will always concretize into
institutions and degenerate into governments. Perhaps one might
argue that this is "natural?"....But so what?! Its opposite is
also "natural". And if it were not, then I still might choose the
unnatural, the impossible.

We know, however, that free (non-governed) relations are perfectly
possible, because we experience them quite frequantly--and more so
when we strive to create them. The anarchist chooses the task (also
the art, the jouissance) of maximizing the social conditions for the
emergence of such relations. Because this is what we desire, this is
what we do.

What about the criminals?

The above considerations may be taken to imply a sort of "ethics", a
working a mutable definition of justice in an existential and
situationalist context. Anarchists should probably only consider
as "criminal" only those who deliberately thwart the realization of
free relations. In a hypothetical prisonless society, only those who
cannot be dissuaded from such action may be subject to "people's
justice," or even vengeance.

At present however we'd do well to realize that our own
determination to cerate such relations now, even in imperfect non-
utopian modes, will inevitably place us in a position
of "criminality" vis-a-vis the State, the legal system, and probably
the "unwritten law" of popular prejudice as well. Revolutionary
martyrdom has long gone out of fashion--the current goal is to
create as much freedom as possible without getting caught.

How does an anarchist society work?

An anarchist society works, whenever two or more people strive
mutually, in an organization of original partnership, to achieve
shared (or complementary) desires. No government is needed to
structure a quilting bee, a dinner party, a black market, a tong (or
secret mutual aid society), a mail network or BBS, a love affair, a
spontaneous social movment (such as ecosabotage or AIDS activism), a
group art project, a commune, a pagan gathering, a neighborhood
protection society, an enthusiasts' club, a nude beach, a Temporary
Autonomous Zone. The key, as Fourier would have said is Passion--or,
to use a more modern sounding word, desire.

How do we get there from here?

In other words, how do we maximize the potential for such
spontaneous relations to arise from beneath the dead weight of a
society suffocated by all the varieties of governance? How do we
give passion a free rein to re-create the world each day in the
original freedom of the "free spirit" and the group of shared
desires? The $64 question--and really not worth a great deal more,
since the answer can only be science fiction.

Very well then, my sense of strategy leans toward a considered
rejection of the remnants of old "New Left" tactics such as the
demo, media-performance, protest, petition, Ghandian resistance or
adventurist terrorism. This entire strategic complex has long since
been recuperated and commodified by the Spectacle (if you'll allow
me a burst of Situ-jargon), and is perhaps no longer even worth the
trouble of detournment.

Two other and quite different strategic areas seem far more
interesting and promising . One is the complex summed up by John
Zerzan in Elements of Refusal--that is, the refusual of widespread
and largely nonpolitical scale of control mechanisms inherent in
such institutions as work, education, consumerism, electoral
politics, "family values", etc. Anarchists might well turn their
attention towards ways to intensify and give direction to
these "elements." Such action might fall in the traditional category
of "agitprop" but would aviod the "leftist" tendency to
institutionalize or "fetishism" the programs of any self-defined
revolutionary elite or avante garde.

Action in the area of "elements of refusal" is negative,
even "nihilistic," while the second area concerns itself with
postive emergencies of spontaneous organizations capable of
providing real alternatives to institutions of Control. Thus the
insurrectionary actions of "refusal" is complemented and enhanced by
a proliferation and concatenation of "original partnership"
relations. In a sense this is an updated version of the old Wobbly
strategy of agitating for a General Strike while simultaneously
building the new society within the shell of the old through union
organization. The difference, I propose, is that the struggle must
be enlarged beyond the "problem of labor" to include the whole
scope of "everyday life" (in the Debordian sense).

[Note: This would be the right place to address question number
9, "What's opur relation to other liberatory struggles?", which
seems to be a subset of the question of strategy/tactics. Clearly
the answer should be: Support them inasmuch as they're actually
liberatory (radical ecotage, sexual minorities, etc.); criticize
them constructively if they veer toward institutionalization
(radical unionism, peace movment, etc) But also: let's keep our eyes
peeled for where the action is. After all, isn't the uprising itself
one of our "criminal pleasures?" Always a new horizon and we nomads
or vagabonds, unable to resit its lure....]

I've attempted to make much more specific proposals in the title
essay of The Temporary Autonomous Zone (Autonomedia, N.Y., 1991); so
here I'll confine myself to mentioning my contention that the goal
of such action cannot properly be designated by the
word "Revolution"--just as the General Strike, for example, was not
a "Revolutionary" tactic but rather one of "social violence" (as
Sorel explained). "Revolution has betrayed itself as just another
damned commodity, bloddy cataclysm, one more turn of the crank of
Control--this is not what we desire, but rather a chance for anarchy
to shine.

Is Anarchy the End of History?

If the becoming of anarchy is never "done" the the answer is No--
except in the special case of "History" self-defined as the
privileged auto-valorization of the institutions and "governments".
But history in this sense is probably already dead,
already "disappeared" into the Spectacle, or the obscenity of
Simulation. Insomuch as anarchy invovles a kind of psychic
paleolithism, it has traditionally longed for a post-historic state
which would mirror that of prehistory. If the French Theorists are
correct, we have already begun to enter such a state. History as
story will continue, for humans might almost be defined as animals
who make stories. But HIstory as the one official story for Control
has lost its monopoly on discourse. Presumably this should work to
our advantage.

How does Anarchy deal with Technology?

If anarchy is a kind of paleolithism, this does not mean we have to
bomb ourselves back to the Stone Age. We're interested in the return
of the Paleolithic, not a return to it. On this point I believe I
disagree with both Zerzan and Fifth Estate, and so with the techno-
futuro-libertarians of CaliforniaLand. Or rather, I agree with all
of them, I'm both a Luddite and a cyberpunk, hence unacceptable to
both parties.

My belief (not knowledge) is that a society which began to approach
general anarchy would deal with technology on the basis of passion,
that is, desire and pleasure. The technology of alienation would
fail to survive such conditions, while the technology of enhancement
would probably thrive. Wildness, however, would also necessarily
come to play a major role in such a world, since wildness is
pleasure. A society based on pleasure would never allow us to techne
to interfere with its enjoyment of nature.

If it is true that all techne is a form of meditation, so also is
all culture. We do not object to meditation per se (after all, our
very senses mediate between the "world" and "brain"), but rather to
the tragic distortion of meditation into alienation. If language
itself is a form of meditation then we may "purify the language of
the tribe";--it's not portry we hate but language as Control.

[Note: On anarchist technology, see Islands in the Net and Green
days in Brunei by B. Sterling, near-future SF written as "utopian
realism", in which desperately poor overpopulated third world
countries make use of appropriate low-tech green and humane
solutions to solve problems which already exist. Also see I.
Ilyich's Energy and Equity]

Why hasn't Anarchy worked before?

What do you mean "Why hasn't Anarchy worked before?! It has worked
thousands, of millions of times. It worked throuhout 90% of human
existence, the Old Stone Age. It works in hunter/gatherer tribes
even now. It works in all the "free relation" type groups listed
above, from quilting bees to tongs. It works every time you invite a
few friends out for a picnic. It "worked" even in "failed uprisings"
like the Munich and Shanghai Soviets, Baja California 1911, Fiume
1919, Krondstadt 1921, Paris 1968. It's worked in communes, Maroon
enclaves, pirate utopias. It worked in early Rhode Island and
Pennsylvania, in Paris 1870, in the Ukraine, Catalonia and Aragon.

The so called future of anarchy is a judgment made percisely by the
kind of History we believe to be moribund. True, few of these
experiments (except the prehistoric and the tribal) lasted a
very "long time"--but this says nothing of any value about the
nature of experience, of individuals and groups, who lived through
such periods of freedom. Perhaps you can recall some brief but
intense love affair, one which even now gives a certain meaning to
your whole life, before and after--a "peak experience". History is
blind to this portion of teh spectrum, the world of "everyday life"
which can also become on occassion the scene of the "irruption of
the Marvelous." Every time this happens it's a triumph for anarchy.
Imagine then (and this is the sort of history we enjoy) the
adventure of major Temporary Autonomous Zones lasting six weeks or
even two years, the communal sense of illumination, camaraderie,
exhilaration--the individual sense of power, of destiny, of
creativity. No one who has ever experienced anything like this can
admit for even one moment that danger of risk and failure might out
weigh the sheer glory of those brief moments of rising up. As soon
doubt the sacredness of that love affair, even if it ended in pain
and misery!

Overcome the myth of failure and we will feel at once, like the cool
breeze that heralds rain in the desert, the inner certainity of
success. To know, to desire, to act--in a sense we cannot desire
what we do not aready know. But we have known the success of anarchy
for a long time now--in fragments, perhaps, in flashes--but real,
real as the monsoon, real as passion. If it were not so, how could
we even desire it, much less act to bring about its victory?

Originally entitled:

"The Willimantic/Rensselaer Questions"
Hakim Bey
from:
Anarchy and the End of History
pp. 87-92

New Hakim Bey article

Thanks to Jim, we've got a new Hakim Bey article. A transmission from the A.O.A. It discusses the defectors that anarchy has seen over the years, and the need for a new form of anarchy.

POST-ANARCHISM ANARCHY

by Hakim Bey

THE ASSOCIATION FOR ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHY gathers in conclave, black turbans & shimmering robes, sprawled on shirazi carpets sipping bitter coffee, smoking long chibouk & sibsi. QUESTION: What's our position on all these recent defections & desertions from anarchism (esp. in California-Land): condemn or condone? Purge them or hail them as advance-guard? Gnostic
elite...or traitors?

Actually, we have a lot of sympathy for the deserters & their various critiques of anarchISM. Like Sinbad & the Horrible Old Man, anarchism staggers around with the corpse of a Martyr magically stuck to its shoulders--haunted by the legacy of failure & revolutionary masochism--stagnant backwater of lost
history.

Between tragic Past & impossible Future, anarchism seems to lack a Present--as if afraid to ask itself, here & now, WHAT ARE MY TRUE DESIRES?--& what can I DO before it's_too_late_?...Yes, imagine yourself confronted by a sorcerer who stares you down balefully & demands, "What is your True Desire?" Do you hem & haw, stammer, take refuge in ideological platitudes? Do you possess both Imagination & Will, can you both dream & dare--or are you the dupe of an
impotent fantasy?

Look in the mirror & try it...(for one of your masks is the face of a sorcerer)...

The anarchist "movement" today contains virtually no Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans or children...even tho _in_theory_ such genuinely oppressed groups
stand to gain the most from any anti-authoritarian revolt. Might it be that anarchISM offers no concrete program whereby the truly deprived might fulfill (or at least struggle realistically to fulfill) real needs & desires?

If so, then this failure would explain not only anarchism's lack of appeal to the poor & marginal, but also the disaffection & desertions from within its own ranks. Demos, picket-lines & reprints of 19th century classics don't add up to a vital, daring conspiracy of self-liberation. If the movement is to grow rather than shrink, a lot of deadwood will have to be jettisoned & some risky ideas embraced.

The potential exists. Any day now, vast numbers of americans are going to realize they're being force-fed a load of reactionary boring hysterical artificially-flavored _crap_. Vast chorus of groans, puking & retching...angry mobs roam the malls, smashing & looting...etc., etc. The Black Banner could provide a focus for the outrage & channel it into an insurrection of the Imagination. We could pick up the struggle where it was dropped by Situationism in '68 & Autonomia in the seventies, & carry it to the next stage. We could have revolt in our times--& in the process, we could realize many of our True Desires, even if only for a season, a brief Pirate Utopia, a warped free-zone in the old Space/Time continuum.

If the A.O.A. retains its affiliation with the "movement," we do so not merely out of a romantic predilection for lost causes--or not entirely. Of all "political systems," anarchism (despite its flaws, & precisely because it is neither political nor a system) comes closest to our understanding of reality, ontology, the nature of being. As for the deserters...we agree with their critiques, but note that they seem to offer no new powerful alternatives. So for the time being we prefer to concentrate on changing anarchism from within.

Here's our program, comrades:

1. Work on the realization that _psychic_racism_ has replaced overt discrimination as one of the most disgusting aspects of our society. Imaginative
participation in other cultures, esp. those we live with.

2. Abandon all ideological purity. Embrace "Type-3" anarchism (to use Bob Black's pro-tem slogan): neither collectivist nor individualist. Cleanse the temple of vain idols, get rid of the Horrible Old Men, the relics & martyrologies.

3. Anti-work or "Zerowork" movement extremely important, including a radical & perhaps violent attack on Education & the serfdom of children.

4. Develop american samizdat network, replace outdated publishing/propaganda tactics. Pornography & popular entertainment as vehicles for radical re-education.

5. In music the hegemony of the 2/4 & 4/4 beat must be overthrown. We need a new music, totally insane but life- affirming, rhythmically subtle yet powerful, & we need it NOW.

6. Anarchism must wean itself away from evangelical materialism & banal 2-dimensional 19th century scientism. "Higher states of consciousness" are not mere SPOOKS invented by evil priests. The orient, the occult, the tribal cultures possess _techniques_ which can be "appropriated" in true anarchist fashion. Without "higher states of consciousness," anarchism ends & dries itself up into a form of misery, a whining complaint. We need a practical kind of "mystical anarchism," devoid of all New Age shit-&-shinola, & inexorably heretical & anti-clerical; avid for all new technologies of consciousness & metanoia--a democratization of shamanism, intoxicated & serene.

7. Sexuality is under assault, obviously from the Right, more subtly from the avant-pseud "post-sexuality" movement, & even more subtly by Spectacular Recuperation in media & advertising. Time for a major step forward in SexPol awareness, an explosive reaffirmation of the polymorphic eros--(even & especially in the face of plague & gloom)--a literal glorification of the senses, a doctrine of delight. Abandon all world-hatred & shame.

8. Experiment with new tactics to replace the outdated baggage of Leftism. Emphasize practical, material & personal benefits of radical networking. The times do not appear propitious for violence or militancy, but surely a bit of sabotage & imaginative disruption is never out of place. Plot & conspire, don't bitch & moan. The Art World in particular deserves a dose of "Poetic Terrorism."

9. The despatialization of post-Industrial society provides some benefits (e.g. computer networking) but can also manifest as a form of oppression (homelessness, gentrification, architectural depersonalization, the erasure of Nature, etc.) The communes of the sixties tried to circumvent these forces but failed. The question of _land_ refuses to go away. How can we separate the concept of _space_ from the mechanisms of _control_? The territorial gangsters, the Nation/States, have hogged the entire map. Who can invent for us a cartography of autonomy, who can draw a map that includes our desires?

AnarchISM ultimately implies anarchy--& anarchy is chaos. Chaos is the principle of continual creation...& _Chaos_never_died_.

--A.O.A. Plenary Session