Post by shotbang on Jul 11, 2012 20:53:21 GMT
Taken from Anarchy101:
Is Chaos Anarchy the new Anarchy?
0 votes Insurrectionary Anarchy was big a few years back, more recently Egoist-Nihilist Anarchy was the trend, is Chaos Anarchy the final epitome of post-industrial/post-modern anarchy?
asked 1 week ago by anonymous
anarchytheorydefinitions2 Answers
+2 votes The quick answer would probably be no. Trends in anarchist tendencies in the United States has fluctuated quite a bit over the past decade, but "chaos anarchy" isn't really one that would become popular. For one, it is a "tendency" that has only been proposed as existing here. For another, the trend of a chaos anarchy still fits the egoist-nihilist or insurrectionary anarchist tendency, if it is as was suggested by other contributors here.
I or another author could draft writings for this tendency, but the adoption of this tendency seems to fall outside of most interpretations of the anarchist milieu. Vandalism, sabotage, arson or simply put, destruction tactics are clandestine techniques while those that are "trendy" tend to be adopted by more open groups. The tactics are used by all anarchists for various reasons, but usually not for the sake of creating chaos.
It might help to define chaos and why anarchists would want to create it. In some cases, we see from nothing, something created. What seems to be mathematically sound becomes broken when exposed to reality. The factors of the unknown are always playing into equations that might seem to be orderly at first.
Take language. To some, it is a static force in society. With various subjects adding their interpretations, language quickly erodes its original meanings and begins to mean different things to different people. "That's fucking sweet" might mean "the subject strikes hard against a light sugary flavor" if taken literally in some ways. More vulgar, it could mean "The subject is having sexual intercourse with something nice". Most times, it means "A subject enjoys an object". But context more often will define it.
To create a chaos anarchy, it might mean anarchists are attempting to undermine the social order, thus creating chaos of that order. Anarchists that want chaos, want to be part of the creation of an X factor. This X factor may unravel preconceived notions on how society conflicts with the dominant order and/or how the dominant order attempts to control society...or something else.
On the flip side, people might see chaos anarchy as a form of order, taking advantage of known and unknown variables that could be scientifically measured. People might also expose that chaos anarchy has no direct impact and is isolated from social organization and a social revolt where groups of people, sometimes large, sometimes small, challenge the relationships of power and exhibit their own power in one way or another.
For anti-chaos anarchists, they might say chaos anarchists interfere with the ability for order anarchists to create anarchy by causing reactions from the social order (typically the state, typically law enforcement) that do more harm that good. Anti-chaos anarchists might be the quickest to denounce chaos anarchists and/or accuse them of working for or helping law enforcement.
Anyways, it would take some time to figure out if a tendency could even come from these thoughts unique from other tendencies, let alone if it might become a part of the status quo of anarchist tendencies. My opinion is that chaos anarchy and nihilist anarchy are similar enough to be synonyms. What could make them different is that chaos anarchy wants to create chaotic situations while nihilist anarchy need not create any situation.
Cherry bombs in toilets, unscrewing the bosses chair so when he sits down, he falls flat on his face, stink bombs in the air ventilation system at school, LSD laced cafeteria food at a corporate seminar, smearing feces on famous paintings at a museum, sending letters to everyone at a workplace telling them they are fired, robbing euthanized dogs from the animal shelter and tossing them onto the highway...is this chaos anarchy? Or is it how anarchist theory meets chaos theory? Or something else?
answered 1 week ago by hpwombat (1,930 points)
Hello,
I'm still waiting for your response on my other post regarding anarchy vs. anarchism.. Great reasoning here. Agree with a majority of your points. Do you have any print or online writings yourself?
If you search old BBS, old internet groups from 1998- and before you will find more of this stuff. I think the 2000’s era especially 2003-2008 (due to bush and other factors) really made anarchists want to eliminate this concept, and seemed to wane down from what it was in the 1990s and before.
Do you think any movement or person has literally called themselves chaos-anarchist? That’s what’s bugging me. Not one find on the internet.
I do think "jackass" and prank-like adolescent behavior could be classified as anarchic behavior or inciting anarchy through a chaotic act. As cruel, dumb, potentially self-harming, pointless and immature as it sounds it definitely can provide a high thrill or a justified act of revenge (to the person). This may apply to teenagers and pranksters of any age and class more than others) anarchist meets chaos theory? There are different levels of this kind of behavior as well. I'm not really sure it’s that deep or relevant in regards to anarchist or chaos theories (maybe it could be I haven’t thought it out) but has its place in creating chaos-anarchy and so must support any theory relevant to it on some level.
I would say the chaos idea was more related to the UK because of a long and constant history of street fighting and rioting (just look up the 1990 poll tax riots) and hooliganism (which normalized violence, stealing and vandalizing) which effected youth cultures in the UK especially punk, so it gave people more of a platform to live out or justify chaos-anarchy which later came to the U.S.( this is what I think not 100 percent sure)
If you look a the biker movement, early beats and the Dadaists and to a lesser the surrealists (which was a 'cultish" movement aside separate from the periodic art style) they all seem to be living and/or some form out of bounds chaos that is trying to maintain itself in the idea of no perceived authority.
If you look at both the original punk movement in the 1970’s and later on 80’s I think that’s where it became popular again and really existed not just as a fashion statement. Also in the more recent 1990’s cyberpunk movies and literature it’s all about chaos-anarchy or maintaining it in a post-apocalyptic future. . Even Role-Playing games seem to have defined this concept for characters as well. — 1 week ago by shothit (200 points) theanarchistlibrary.org/library/high-priest-wombat-ksc-quiet-resistance-the-workers-union-underground
This writing was more about the relationship to work some anarchists have taken on. How the historic resistance to work has looked without guidance from unions. It gives a nod to behavior outside of work, but that isn't the main focus, so may not apply as much. The idea is that the abolition of work is what is desired by much of the history of work in civilization.
I'm not too certain of the history of old bulletin boards, with only some minor participation on them prior to "yahoo clubs" which started in 1998, which was replaced by "yahoo groups", then most relevant discussion switched to Infoshop News and several phpbbs forums. Around 2008, my discussion and many others went to Anarchist news dot org, though social networking has made a big impact on channeling these kinds of discussions away from open discussion sites.
Anyways, this is a bit off topic. Back on topic.
The "high thrill" goes with the "peak experience" Hakim Bey says is part of the goal of participating in an immediatist group. The tong (the highest form of an immediatist group) may be most closely associated with "chaos anarchy" being that it is secretive.
Punk could be considered loosely influenced by the situationists and injected with a chaotic interpretation of anarchy. Punk, for a long time, defined the culture of anarchists. While many liberal and leftist ideas also were thrown around within it, the main tendencies in punk looked to rebel so moved towards anarchist ideas. There is also the rejection of both communism and capitalism during the cold war, which was appealing.
The art movements you mentioned, dadaist and surrealists, were considered advanced by the situationists (an art group) also. Bikers, street fighting, riots, are good points and anarchists have often been in favor of these things, though the main participation have not been done by anarchists.
Roleplaying games seems the hidden influence. I would say that is the main thrust on where I got involved as an anarchist. Not just Dungeons and Dragons, but GURPS, Cyberpunk and Shadowrun all have heavy anarchist themes. Vampire: the Masquerade and other World of Darkness games revolutionized roleplaying games. VtM and WoD had a "gothic-punk" theme with the Brujah vampire clan being the most anarchistic with an upside down anarchist symbol as its clan symbol.
Cyberpunk and Shadowrun is also linked to cyberpunk culture. The first game being a direct interpretation of themes created by William Gibson while the latter is a blend of cyberpunk with fantasy themes attached to it. Shadowrun has gone on to having a successful series of video games, with a less successful line of fiction books, which I've read little of.
The faux religions are connected to roleplaying game culture, discordian and subgenius religions being the most obvious. GURPS brought forward the discordian religion by publishing the "Principia Discordia". In RPG stores, you could get the Anarchist Cookbook, "Assassins/Killer" which became popular on college campuses and was a live action game where you and your friends would try to find ways to "kill" each other.
I do agree there seems to be an overall connection, that isn't talked about much among mainstream anarchists. Bob Black and Hakim Bey both point out the existence of "Type 3 anarchists" which might be where "chaos anarchy" would fall in the spectrum. By highlighting it as "chaos anarchy" and pointing out its connection to these various things as ascendants, there does seem to be a real tendency growing.
Hacking and Trolling, Internet culture, is something that is of great interest to me and is furthering type 3 anarchy in some ways, but like all these prior influences, the theory isn't usually that strong while the tactical influences are only loosely based on anarchist theory and methods.
So overall, there might be something here. While I consider this to be in line with egoist, nihilist, illegalist and insurrectionary anarchist practices, it does also seem to be somewhat separate. Perhaps best considered the type 3 expressions of these tendencies? — 6 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Like I said I’m assuming it was a loosely defined philosophy, sometimes not always including those who didn't know difference it and anarchism, and more of an 80's and 90's thing that aside of hakim bey and others was rooted in small clubs/groups/gangs perhaps and individuals/social circles aside of the BBS hacker culture and punk squatter sor other groups. (I’ve yet to find any trace or evidence other than BBS text files and certain punk paraphernalia and some "related" books here and there regarding other names i've mentioned)
Not sure if you intended this but I personally never saw the anarchi(sm) punk bands (like crass) as leading punk into anarchism. I just saw them as groups advocating extreme political anarchism using as punk or nihilistic aesthetic as compatible with it, and independent from other scenes. Whereas the original punks and the hardcore scene that followed and as with other similar music was more about letting the music or attitude be chaos/chaotic and not intentionally adhering to any form of a political ideology. But I know punk music is just some historical aspect of this discussion. Not to be overestimated with this topic.
I'm pretty sure it died that died out somehow. I think due to extreme left popularity in the recent decade a lot of extreme leftist groups, or branches of political anarchism, seemed to take a stronghold. Also the internet seemed to hijack the notion of chaos anarchy especially because it’s simultaneously obscure (lack of enough sources) and has been wrongly by the media as encompassing anarchism. Also with the amount of easily editable information and bias sites available.
I've yet to order these faux religion books been wanting to for a while. I can't get myself to read illuminati! Series. Even though they sound awesome.
It’s funny I have these old RPG paper and pen games from the 1980's. And there are so many definitions of anarchist relating to seeker of chaos and disorder which is further elaborated in a logical manner. I can type them if you want.?
OFF TOPIC: I have TMNT and other strangeness and some other palladium games. Would you happen to know how to play? With another GM? I've owned these for 6 years couldn't find one person to play in real life.
We're really on to making sense of this definition somehow.
Yes type 3 sounds good. I would like to know which book mentions this type 3 anarchist. — 6 days ago by shothit (200 points) I believe the definition started here, from Bob Black
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-theses-on-anarchism-after-post-modernism
It should be pointed out that Bob Black was in the Church of the Subgenius as a prominent member for a brief period. When he left, I was friends with a subgenius and learned of Bob Black a few years before I became a self identifying anarchist. Both he and Hakim Bey contributed to my decision to learn more about anarchists. Shortly after I dropped out of college in 1998, I pondered on many hits of acid if I should become an anarchist for several months before deciding it was the path I wanted to go.
At this point in my history, I was already an experienced vandal and associated my anarchism with my desire to continue. A part of me was upset that my friends had turned away due to pressure from a Christian friend while we were firmly anti-christian.
I should also point out that my decision to call myself an anarchist came with the thought that anarchists no longer existed as they once were. By the end of 1998 I was participating in a yahoo club (now a yahoo group) called "the Anarchist Commune". From influences like Chomsky, who I had begun studying in College, I thought most anarchists were like him, so I attempted to blend my anarchism with politics. Being a right wing libertarian at the time, like many discordians, it took a great deal of time to work out a desire to blend politics with my views.
After reading Proudon's "What is Property?" and several market anarchist views, like Benjamin Tucker, I had made a group called "The Progressive Libertarian Party". The party was a blend of libertarian politics (minimize state power, with an emphasis on dismantling corporate welfare) with activist pressure and union ideas (defense of the homeless, with a couple of homeless members in the fledgling party). The more "radical" part was attempting to create a voluntary communism, called "mutual communism" which was a dual power relationship concept.
The idea was to build a shadow economy within the mutual communist group where people would work in the dominant economy and pool resources inside a central credit union and allocate resources to cover needs while attempting to work with unions like the IWW to raise the general standard of living for those still in the dominant economy. Meanwhile, the shadow economy would attract small businesses and use an alternative currency that was valued at the average labor hour participants had earned in the dominant economy.
Mainly a voluntary leveling scheme that protected its participants who were all expected to live spartan lives, only raising their worth by seizing jobs with higher value or by doing well in other ways in the dominant economy like striking for higher wages or being a successful small business person. The building of co-operative housing (communes) was to cut costs in the long run.
Anyways, this doesn't have anything to do with Chaos Anarchy other than to point out how without knowing of the existence of an anarchist milieu, but studying their ways can create diluted experiments. Ironically the end of the Progressive Libertarian Party was the result of a punk rock anarchist who was also the Brujah clan leader in our LARP interacting with our group. His anarchist communism challenged our views, so we opted to dissolve the party, never to re-organize it. I still remained sympathetic to market anarchism up until my participation in RAAN, where I first became an anarchist communist (platformist), then close to a year later, dropping platformist views and moving towards post-left views, eventually returning to egoism and then nihilist anarchy, which fit my implicit views on an anarchy I had thought no longer existed.
Bob Black, Hakim Bey and Noam Chomsky all were part of the 90s anarchism that interacted regularly with right wing libertarians, objectivists and market anarchists. Even Chuck0 was a market anarchist. Seattle '99 and the black bloc changed this direction as Internet anarchists began interacting with the larger milieu. Now market anarchism is largely rejected by those holding the anarchist identity.
Many Discordians stilll hold to right wing libertarian and market anarchist views. My issue with the Discordian status quo is that it is more about only about questioning ones views on religion and value and encouraging people to think for themselves, but beyond this, offers little that could be interpreted as radical by itself.
Sorry for the long tangent, talking about type 3 anarchy brings me to have nostalgia. I've always been more of a goth/industrial fan more than a fan of punk, but the "destroy" anarchist themes seemed to make more sense than anything Crass or the Clash had to say.
Read most of the Illuminati, but never finished it. I have this thing where I can't finish a book I enjoy because I don't want it to end. Haven't read other Robert Anton Wilson books, though read a lot of his ideas.
I wouldn't mind checking out the views from the games you are talking about. The TMNT thing threw me off when I first learned it was a Rifts spin off game before it became a popular cartoon. I never learned its rules. I mainly was a D&D fan, though played Rifts somewhat. My current games are still 3.5 D&D, Star Wars Galaxies and the new WoD.
On topic again: The attraction of "Chaos Anarchy" seems to be absorbed a great deal by so many factors. Perhaps there is a problem with main anarchy recuperating "Chaos Anarchy", so maybe the vein of thought needs detailed so the future delinquents can just hop right in and make destroy rather than go off on a tangent like I did
— 5 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Very interesting. Your tangents are cool. Very good to know. It will take me some time to sift threw these texts. i skimemd and read through bob's text. Good stuff to hear his stuff which reassures and affirms these ideas we've been discussing on some levels. While this is good again i still wish there is a wealth of elaboration on this type three. Does bob have any print books where all this is placed in (i'm more of fan of hardcopy books). How exactly is Noam chomsky related to this? just curious. I was reading an interview a while back and bob didn't bring up how chaos can be explained with anarchy I'm really surprised there barely is a base or movement. Its still all about searching.
This however makes me think twice about what he says in the text that you sent me:
This is taken from : theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101 (read all)
"Q: One definition of “anarchy” is chaos. Isn’t that what anarchy would be — chaos? "
"A :Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, wrote that “liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Anarchist order is superior to state-enforced order because it is not a system of coercive laws, it is simply how communities of people who know each other decide how to live together. Anarchist order is based on common consent and common sense."
ummmmmm. anyways
There are a few books ; cyber culture and chaos : www.amazon.com/Chaos-Cyber-Culture-Timothy-Leary/
rules of chaos: www.amazon.com/Rules-Chaos-Stephen-Vizinczey/dp/0226858928( the author is a absolute douche i contacted with a brief question regarding any link to philsophical chaos or chaos-anarchy a while back harshly remarks. He's too old to understand i guess
Here's another book I found in regards to chaos theory ( but more applied) www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Social-Sciences-Applications/dp/0472084720.
I borrowed it from the local library but i found it to be kinda technical and boring. I could give it another try
I'm still a huge fan of TMNT. Here's an extract from the original and rare game.
Copywright 1985 TMNT and other strangeness:
Anarchist (selfish)
"This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is the insurgent, gambler and high roller. The uncommited freebooter who is more likely to be a crimefighter because he enjoys the thrill of danger and excitement than any cause. THis character will at least consider doing anything if the price is right or challenge great. Like moths drawn to a flame, the anarchist is attracted to the lure of hte impossible, dangerous and the underdog. They are intrigued by power, glory, and wealth. Life has meaning but his has the greatest meaning. Innocent lives are protected, but occasionally some must be sacrificed for the greater cause. Laws and rules infringe on his personal freedom and were meant to be broken. He wil not hesitate at using strong arm techniques, breaking and entering , theft, harrassment, and destruction of private property, and so on. This includes acting as judge, jury and executioner. After all there is the wrong way and his way. These characters are usually the daring vigilante or anti-hero who feeles the end justifies the means. The anarchist aligned person is always looking for the best deal and self-gratification and will work with good, selfish or evil to attain his goals. The anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil: rebelling and bending the law to fit his needs. "
"Anarchist characters will...
1. May keep his word.
2. Lies and cheats as he feels necessary
3. Are not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly knock-out, attack or beat up and unarmed foe.
4. Never kill an innocent but may harm or kidnap.
5 Will use torture to extract inforamtion but not likely to do so for pleasure.
6.Seldom kills for pleasure.
7. Is not likely to help someone without an ulterior motive even if its only to show off.
8. Rarely works within law unless it serves his purpose
9.Constantly breaks the law to achieve his goals.
10. Has little respect for authority, the law, or self-discipline.
11. Does not work well wihin groups, tends to do so as he pleases despite order to the contrary.
12. Will take "dirty money" or items without hesitation.
13. May betray a friend"
END
Industrial music even goth related music certainly has more depth and flavor than punk( to me at least) was just mentioning it within a historical context)
Personally i'm just revisiting things like anarchy and occultism etc... trying to see whats interesting and useful.
I've been through phases of especially during teen years of trying different things and being into a lot of different ideas.
Just revisting some, just for the sake of it. See what i can relate to what's meaningful on some level. Its also an interest.
Off topic :Do you know anything about the origin of the typical over used A symbol with the sides of the A coming out of the O? was it before the punk movement? How did it come to be? — 5 days ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 5 days ago by shothit The over-extended A is a result of graffiti. I'd say it is more in agreement with chaos than order, when done. The Brujah clan symbol for Vampire: The Masquerade, as White Wolf designed it uses it in this manner.
I use the dirty circle-a in my graffiti as well and it must come from punk graffiti. I really want to say its relationship is tied to punk culture as a rejection of order and the establishment. A rejection of the status quo. The interpretation of anarchy as order sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Perhaps that is what it meant to Proudon, but Proudon's use of "anarchist" was more a shock value because his system happened to be anarchist. If I wrote "KAOS" on the wall, the "A" would be a dirty circle-a. I've seen it this way many times as well.
I'll touch on the rest later after some time. — 5 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Was wondering if you lost interest in this subject or discussion.
If not :
Here's another article i found: libcom.org/library/socanlifean4
What do you make of this? Seems riddled with sarcasm. — 3 days ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 2 days ago by shothit Well, I suppose Noam Chomsky doesn't matter too much to Chaos Anarchy other than he is an example of the low point of the anarchist movement. It got so low that people forgot what anarchists were all about, only vaguely remembering anarchists were bomb throwers. Chomsky was someone that wanted to be different from the Marxists, perhaps also wanting to avoid Cold War attitudes to his work. USA vs. USSR was a strong mindset. You still see this desire to move as far away from what could be considered Marxist-Leninist in today's anarchists who might otherwise be considered close to some of the libertarian Marxisms in Europe. So while Marxism descended, anarchists ascended in interest. Noam Chomsky is a reflection of this, just as "chaos anarchy" is a reflection of it. However, chaos anarchy is less attached to academic pursuits and is more an expression of juvenile delinquents, graffitists, gang members and so on, as we have sort of already went over.
I'll have to have time to review these links, maybe draft an article for discussion related to them when I can. Sorry I can't give more time at the moment, as a chaotic, I go in many directions and attempting to commit to things sometimes causes me to lose commitment. Not a good thing, as I probably could be a successful writer if I could stay focused. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2012/07/09/greece-chaos-just-around-the-corner-by-the-r-o-conspiracy-of-cells-of-fire-and-theofilos-mavropoulos/
this also proved to be of interest. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Well, the links are broken and I did manage to get the basic idea that was wanted to be covered found here, I believe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
The "butterfly effect" seems to be of particular importance to the development of a chaos anarchy. Through propaganda of the deed, we feel there is the ability that our small actions will create unknown affects on society, which may help create further disorder that leads towards the undermining of the controlling order.
The problem with chaos theory or perhaps it isn't a problem at all, is that is actually another form of order, in a way. To discordians, this is an eristic/aneristic dilemma where we can see "all the order in the world" and "all the chaos in the world" by simply shifting how we view it. discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Eristic_Illusion
To then build the theory of "chaos anarchy" we have:
- The spreading of cookbooks for diy experimentation.
- The use of sophisticated pranks, hoaxes and general mischief similar to Hakim Bey's concept of poetic terrorism.
- Propaganda that is about the spread of chaos, discord and destruction. This differs a great deal from the left, which is about how enemies are getting their just deserts. To a chaos anarchist, the enemy might deserve it, but is secondary to the spreading of chaos, which is more interesting and important.
- An attempted focus on spreading the message of chaos to juveniles, gangs, musicians, hackers, internet trolls and artists.
- Having an invisible effect, where chaos anarchist actions cause others to act in different ways to create ruptures where the chaos anarchist is not implicated. Heightening the conflict of opposing forces to where a rupture might occur despite none of the forces holding any views that might be "good" to the chaos anarchist.
Not really sure if this is going anywhere and if this is something that can actually be practiced by anyone. It is not a tendency that would be accepted by the wider anarchist milieu and would probably be the most reviled.
A group that practiced this type of "chaos anarchy" could of been the Lords of Chaos en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Chaos_%28group%29 — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) A criticism of the "Lords of Chaos" is that some of their activities had little to do with fighting domination, but rather doing acts of chaos that sometimes were enforcing racist or homophobic narratives. On the other hand, the variety of devices and the style of activities were almost always done in a way that could be compared to Hakim Bey's "poetic terrorism".
The Trenchcoast mafia, the natural selector, the Beasts of Satan and other similar groups could all be looked at for inspiration. As far as anarchist content to be found within them, they might not have much going on other than on a deeper psychological examination. These individuals and groups may of acted as a result of bullying and being more disaffected as individuals than feeling some sort of collective oppression or exploitation. Who they acted for is primarily themselves. They are expressing their own power and that power may be egoist in ways, but not really anarchist. If they are fully embraced as practitioners, "chaos anarchy" may be more of a "chaos egoism" that is separate from anarchists. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) – edited 1 day ago by hpwombat
You’re back...great. I do see a lot of valid and good points and examples here.
Did you find any bits of the other books online I mentioned? I'm planning to order some.
I wouldn't give up so fast: I do think that chaos anarchy theory could be more grounded in a similar way to taz, deeper containing more of a dada like manifesto style and imply chaotic anarchic behavior within more of the context and order including more depth in the subject.
Maybe we can come up with it or I will elaborate sometime later.
The reason why I posted a link to chaos theory in the social sciences is because it’s linked to real case studies and other things and it’s also less jargony than reading stuff about physics etc... Its worth a check
Thanks for the names. Here's what I think. Feel free to disagree though. No prob.
I can see what you’re saying as these groups maybe had a nihilist-image but your right they don't have much to do with chaos anarchy, but rather some kind of pseudo nihilist-egoism rooted in teen alienation/angst or and mental imbalance/ disorder.
I didn't read a whole lot of their TCM's writing don't know much but i
don't think would qualify as even a proper movement as lot of stuff seems drawn straight from 90's industrial bands and video games and movies . This natural selector guy seems like a school shooter copycat. All these people seem to me as teens with a suppressed misguided rage and/or mental disorders posing as pseudo-nihilists
Beasts of Satan seem to be a satanic group. Most of these actions were done in the satanic panic and Scandinavian black metal crimes in the 80's and 90's. A lot of it is centered on cult-like, misguided or fetishized violent crimes. Find it rather different these subjects altogether have a different nature than this "anarchy chaos" we have been discussing.
I see an ironic similarity with Anarchism and Satanism. (Not a Satanist here or advocating any beliefs) But Devil Worship or paganistic theistic Satanism /dark or evil worship is often treated in the same way chaos anarchy or egoist anarchism is treated when compared to Anarchism or Laveyian Satanism.
The funny thing is both Anarchism and Laveyian Satanism are metaphors unrelated to the original meanings. (anarchists don't accept the unpredictability that anarchy allows for, Laveyian Satanists don’t worship a devil or acknowledge Devil/God exists (only a archetypical symbol they are fixated on for which they select on the "good –humanistic -rational" traits only of) Both seem to be the majority in their fields and reject their older definitions (citing they don't exist, they don't represent the real or true version of this belief etc..)
I think devil worship even the more constructive or non-violent or malicious types - are still pretty fascistic and leave a lot more room to be self-destructive. With spell casting and ritual practice. Think that stuff has more control over you and has more of probability to harm you than chaos principals.
With chaos anarchy you have more of a chance of controlling your chaos without having to prove yourself in the same way.
I think the cyber punk movies provide a great deal of insight into chaos anarchy at least superficially :
Re-watching Robocop, blade runner, strange days ... wait for neuromancer www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/
I do feel like we are moving into more of a state where cyberpunk themes are becoming more relevant:
Large Corporate control and ongoing globalized branding
Things moving or being significantly centered around - computers - digital technology; which has become less expensive and more compact Online monitoring, and profiling
Greater loss of the Paper and Ink era
Constant Economic/Political crises
I do feel like this more relevant now that it was like in 2004 or something. I do think that it perpetuates a certain order as opposed to the chaos of the internet or free will.
But I believe "cyberpunk" was more relevant and interesting when specific things about computer technology were not developed enough (used by a much smaller percentage and therefore the intention as subversive tool for or embracing chaos was much innocent and different than how it turned out to be after it was consumed by the masses as an evolutionary process.Making it seem kind of irrelevant and dated today to me in some way. Still it has it's place though and some truth to an extent.
I think there is also an anti-technology role and anti-civilization of current trends I’ve read amount in some links relating to this chaos topic.
I definitely think technology evolves and is good but it’s good to boycott or at least be aware of certain new tech trends and how they are made to sell or control. Even the internet steals tangibility, real dialogue or underestimates the real value and benefit of “physical" existence of the written word, conversation, music, photograph etc... Under the disguise of practicality, communication and instant access. Which is part of an order that does not see the values in such things, and works to sustain itself sometimes for extreme power and control, alongside progres and good use but not necessarily useful for the rest of us or always good.
Thats why i think its good when you can to do as much as possible without the depedancy of such a technology. Not because of its dark side but because you gain so much more in the real world, even though you might not have the benefits that come or previously came with it
Also the idea of chaos being linked with a primordial lifestyle is an interesting thing to explore
I think punks, Dadaists etc... Have been tossing around anarchy in the time when political anarchists existed as well. I don't think it should concern them as long as these ideas are not trying to fit in the same pool as them.
I recently made a post responding to anarchy vs. anarchism again check it out. I responded to someone who said dismissed chaos from anarchy. Might be a little exaggerated and redundant...but still..
Some more links:
freenet.am/~verq/article_manifesto2.html
www.roninpub.com/cybpun.html
www.391.org/manifestos/19180323tristantzara_dadamanifesto.htm
thinkexist.com/quotations/chaos/
The only issue I see with chaos is when it allows for malicious or evil intentions (whatever that is) to roam free. But then again I think when you want chaos a lot of comes with the territory that you either have to fight or manage, as the good that can potentially come for and from the person can outweigh the bad (whatever that is)
Do you have your own website, profile etc.. : Are you familiar with this blog what do you make of this guy mixing of the two:
anarchyandchaos.wordpress.com/ — 12 hours ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 9 hours ago by shothit subversion.freeforums.net would be a good place to move this discussion. It is currently just a dumping ground for ideas and experimental thoughts, so this would be welcome there. The only other person registered is my partner-in-crime. Feel free to register and we can continue developing this idea.
The "anarchy and chaos" blog is owned by a known chaotic that spreads sexually transmitted diseases, but otherwise has some pretty alright ideas. I've found that despicable people often have a stronger concept of radicalism, perhaps due to ostracism, but that is just a theory. — 3 hours ago by hpwombat
New Response:
I tend to want to distance anarchy away from the leftist (don't mean right or anything else) or collectivist, or eco awareness groups - ideas:
The disgust with technology is for me is about rejecting this over-consumption of these force- fed (only current) tech fads and watering down of high quality to fit practicality and whatever catches attention. and having nothing to having to do with being against wasting resources or depending on money or against industrialization. I've have nothing against these issues.
I think the Jackass (similar groups) crew (as annoying, irrelevant and commercialized they are) practice more chaos than all these groups than these groups we just discussed.
I just remembered that movie SLC punk. Have you watched it? It does depict someone who believes in chaos anarchy. It would be good to dissect the origins or logic and flow of the characters beliefs in relation to what we've been discussing. I plan on going over Steveo's rants. You want to give it shot as well? I think the script is online.
So what do you make of the themes, links and other things that I brought up?
Is Chaos Anarchy the new Anarchy?
0 votes Insurrectionary Anarchy was big a few years back, more recently Egoist-Nihilist Anarchy was the trend, is Chaos Anarchy the final epitome of post-industrial/post-modern anarchy?
asked 1 week ago by anonymous
anarchytheorydefinitions2 Answers
+2 votes The quick answer would probably be no. Trends in anarchist tendencies in the United States has fluctuated quite a bit over the past decade, but "chaos anarchy" isn't really one that would become popular. For one, it is a "tendency" that has only been proposed as existing here. For another, the trend of a chaos anarchy still fits the egoist-nihilist or insurrectionary anarchist tendency, if it is as was suggested by other contributors here.
I or another author could draft writings for this tendency, but the adoption of this tendency seems to fall outside of most interpretations of the anarchist milieu. Vandalism, sabotage, arson or simply put, destruction tactics are clandestine techniques while those that are "trendy" tend to be adopted by more open groups. The tactics are used by all anarchists for various reasons, but usually not for the sake of creating chaos.
It might help to define chaos and why anarchists would want to create it. In some cases, we see from nothing, something created. What seems to be mathematically sound becomes broken when exposed to reality. The factors of the unknown are always playing into equations that might seem to be orderly at first.
Take language. To some, it is a static force in society. With various subjects adding their interpretations, language quickly erodes its original meanings and begins to mean different things to different people. "That's fucking sweet" might mean "the subject strikes hard against a light sugary flavor" if taken literally in some ways. More vulgar, it could mean "The subject is having sexual intercourse with something nice". Most times, it means "A subject enjoys an object". But context more often will define it.
To create a chaos anarchy, it might mean anarchists are attempting to undermine the social order, thus creating chaos of that order. Anarchists that want chaos, want to be part of the creation of an X factor. This X factor may unravel preconceived notions on how society conflicts with the dominant order and/or how the dominant order attempts to control society...or something else.
On the flip side, people might see chaos anarchy as a form of order, taking advantage of known and unknown variables that could be scientifically measured. People might also expose that chaos anarchy has no direct impact and is isolated from social organization and a social revolt where groups of people, sometimes large, sometimes small, challenge the relationships of power and exhibit their own power in one way or another.
For anti-chaos anarchists, they might say chaos anarchists interfere with the ability for order anarchists to create anarchy by causing reactions from the social order (typically the state, typically law enforcement) that do more harm that good. Anti-chaos anarchists might be the quickest to denounce chaos anarchists and/or accuse them of working for or helping law enforcement.
Anyways, it would take some time to figure out if a tendency could even come from these thoughts unique from other tendencies, let alone if it might become a part of the status quo of anarchist tendencies. My opinion is that chaos anarchy and nihilist anarchy are similar enough to be synonyms. What could make them different is that chaos anarchy wants to create chaotic situations while nihilist anarchy need not create any situation.
Cherry bombs in toilets, unscrewing the bosses chair so when he sits down, he falls flat on his face, stink bombs in the air ventilation system at school, LSD laced cafeteria food at a corporate seminar, smearing feces on famous paintings at a museum, sending letters to everyone at a workplace telling them they are fired, robbing euthanized dogs from the animal shelter and tossing them onto the highway...is this chaos anarchy? Or is it how anarchist theory meets chaos theory? Or something else?
answered 1 week ago by hpwombat (1,930 points)
Hello,
I'm still waiting for your response on my other post regarding anarchy vs. anarchism.. Great reasoning here. Agree with a majority of your points. Do you have any print or online writings yourself?
If you search old BBS, old internet groups from 1998- and before you will find more of this stuff. I think the 2000’s era especially 2003-2008 (due to bush and other factors) really made anarchists want to eliminate this concept, and seemed to wane down from what it was in the 1990s and before.
Do you think any movement or person has literally called themselves chaos-anarchist? That’s what’s bugging me. Not one find on the internet.
I do think "jackass" and prank-like adolescent behavior could be classified as anarchic behavior or inciting anarchy through a chaotic act. As cruel, dumb, potentially self-harming, pointless and immature as it sounds it definitely can provide a high thrill or a justified act of revenge (to the person). This may apply to teenagers and pranksters of any age and class more than others) anarchist meets chaos theory? There are different levels of this kind of behavior as well. I'm not really sure it’s that deep or relevant in regards to anarchist or chaos theories (maybe it could be I haven’t thought it out) but has its place in creating chaos-anarchy and so must support any theory relevant to it on some level.
I would say the chaos idea was more related to the UK because of a long and constant history of street fighting and rioting (just look up the 1990 poll tax riots) and hooliganism (which normalized violence, stealing and vandalizing) which effected youth cultures in the UK especially punk, so it gave people more of a platform to live out or justify chaos-anarchy which later came to the U.S.( this is what I think not 100 percent sure)
If you look a the biker movement, early beats and the Dadaists and to a lesser the surrealists (which was a 'cultish" movement aside separate from the periodic art style) they all seem to be living and/or some form out of bounds chaos that is trying to maintain itself in the idea of no perceived authority.
If you look at both the original punk movement in the 1970’s and later on 80’s I think that’s where it became popular again and really existed not just as a fashion statement. Also in the more recent 1990’s cyberpunk movies and literature it’s all about chaos-anarchy or maintaining it in a post-apocalyptic future. . Even Role-Playing games seem to have defined this concept for characters as well. — 1 week ago by shothit (200 points) theanarchistlibrary.org/library/high-priest-wombat-ksc-quiet-resistance-the-workers-union-underground
This writing was more about the relationship to work some anarchists have taken on. How the historic resistance to work has looked without guidance from unions. It gives a nod to behavior outside of work, but that isn't the main focus, so may not apply as much. The idea is that the abolition of work is what is desired by much of the history of work in civilization.
I'm not too certain of the history of old bulletin boards, with only some minor participation on them prior to "yahoo clubs" which started in 1998, which was replaced by "yahoo groups", then most relevant discussion switched to Infoshop News and several phpbbs forums. Around 2008, my discussion and many others went to Anarchist news dot org, though social networking has made a big impact on channeling these kinds of discussions away from open discussion sites.
Anyways, this is a bit off topic. Back on topic.
The "high thrill" goes with the "peak experience" Hakim Bey says is part of the goal of participating in an immediatist group. The tong (the highest form of an immediatist group) may be most closely associated with "chaos anarchy" being that it is secretive.
Punk could be considered loosely influenced by the situationists and injected with a chaotic interpretation of anarchy. Punk, for a long time, defined the culture of anarchists. While many liberal and leftist ideas also were thrown around within it, the main tendencies in punk looked to rebel so moved towards anarchist ideas. There is also the rejection of both communism and capitalism during the cold war, which was appealing.
The art movements you mentioned, dadaist and surrealists, were considered advanced by the situationists (an art group) also. Bikers, street fighting, riots, are good points and anarchists have often been in favor of these things, though the main participation have not been done by anarchists.
Roleplaying games seems the hidden influence. I would say that is the main thrust on where I got involved as an anarchist. Not just Dungeons and Dragons, but GURPS, Cyberpunk and Shadowrun all have heavy anarchist themes. Vampire: the Masquerade and other World of Darkness games revolutionized roleplaying games. VtM and WoD had a "gothic-punk" theme with the Brujah vampire clan being the most anarchistic with an upside down anarchist symbol as its clan symbol.
Cyberpunk and Shadowrun is also linked to cyberpunk culture. The first game being a direct interpretation of themes created by William Gibson while the latter is a blend of cyberpunk with fantasy themes attached to it. Shadowrun has gone on to having a successful series of video games, with a less successful line of fiction books, which I've read little of.
The faux religions are connected to roleplaying game culture, discordian and subgenius religions being the most obvious. GURPS brought forward the discordian religion by publishing the "Principia Discordia". In RPG stores, you could get the Anarchist Cookbook, "Assassins/Killer" which became popular on college campuses and was a live action game where you and your friends would try to find ways to "kill" each other.
I do agree there seems to be an overall connection, that isn't talked about much among mainstream anarchists. Bob Black and Hakim Bey both point out the existence of "Type 3 anarchists" which might be where "chaos anarchy" would fall in the spectrum. By highlighting it as "chaos anarchy" and pointing out its connection to these various things as ascendants, there does seem to be a real tendency growing.
Hacking and Trolling, Internet culture, is something that is of great interest to me and is furthering type 3 anarchy in some ways, but like all these prior influences, the theory isn't usually that strong while the tactical influences are only loosely based on anarchist theory and methods.
So overall, there might be something here. While I consider this to be in line with egoist, nihilist, illegalist and insurrectionary anarchist practices, it does also seem to be somewhat separate. Perhaps best considered the type 3 expressions of these tendencies? — 6 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Like I said I’m assuming it was a loosely defined philosophy, sometimes not always including those who didn't know difference it and anarchism, and more of an 80's and 90's thing that aside of hakim bey and others was rooted in small clubs/groups/gangs perhaps and individuals/social circles aside of the BBS hacker culture and punk squatter sor other groups. (I’ve yet to find any trace or evidence other than BBS text files and certain punk paraphernalia and some "related" books here and there regarding other names i've mentioned)
Not sure if you intended this but I personally never saw the anarchi(sm) punk bands (like crass) as leading punk into anarchism. I just saw them as groups advocating extreme political anarchism using as punk or nihilistic aesthetic as compatible with it, and independent from other scenes. Whereas the original punks and the hardcore scene that followed and as with other similar music was more about letting the music or attitude be chaos/chaotic and not intentionally adhering to any form of a political ideology. But I know punk music is just some historical aspect of this discussion. Not to be overestimated with this topic.
I'm pretty sure it died that died out somehow. I think due to extreme left popularity in the recent decade a lot of extreme leftist groups, or branches of political anarchism, seemed to take a stronghold. Also the internet seemed to hijack the notion of chaos anarchy especially because it’s simultaneously obscure (lack of enough sources) and has been wrongly by the media as encompassing anarchism. Also with the amount of easily editable information and bias sites available.
I've yet to order these faux religion books been wanting to for a while. I can't get myself to read illuminati! Series. Even though they sound awesome.
It’s funny I have these old RPG paper and pen games from the 1980's. And there are so many definitions of anarchist relating to seeker of chaos and disorder which is further elaborated in a logical manner. I can type them if you want.?
OFF TOPIC: I have TMNT and other strangeness and some other palladium games. Would you happen to know how to play? With another GM? I've owned these for 6 years couldn't find one person to play in real life.
We're really on to making sense of this definition somehow.
Yes type 3 sounds good. I would like to know which book mentions this type 3 anarchist. — 6 days ago by shothit (200 points) I believe the definition started here, from Bob Black
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-theses-on-anarchism-after-post-modernism
It should be pointed out that Bob Black was in the Church of the Subgenius as a prominent member for a brief period. When he left, I was friends with a subgenius and learned of Bob Black a few years before I became a self identifying anarchist. Both he and Hakim Bey contributed to my decision to learn more about anarchists. Shortly after I dropped out of college in 1998, I pondered on many hits of acid if I should become an anarchist for several months before deciding it was the path I wanted to go.
At this point in my history, I was already an experienced vandal and associated my anarchism with my desire to continue. A part of me was upset that my friends had turned away due to pressure from a Christian friend while we were firmly anti-christian.
I should also point out that my decision to call myself an anarchist came with the thought that anarchists no longer existed as they once were. By the end of 1998 I was participating in a yahoo club (now a yahoo group) called "the Anarchist Commune". From influences like Chomsky, who I had begun studying in College, I thought most anarchists were like him, so I attempted to blend my anarchism with politics. Being a right wing libertarian at the time, like many discordians, it took a great deal of time to work out a desire to blend politics with my views.
After reading Proudon's "What is Property?" and several market anarchist views, like Benjamin Tucker, I had made a group called "The Progressive Libertarian Party". The party was a blend of libertarian politics (minimize state power, with an emphasis on dismantling corporate welfare) with activist pressure and union ideas (defense of the homeless, with a couple of homeless members in the fledgling party). The more "radical" part was attempting to create a voluntary communism, called "mutual communism" which was a dual power relationship concept.
The idea was to build a shadow economy within the mutual communist group where people would work in the dominant economy and pool resources inside a central credit union and allocate resources to cover needs while attempting to work with unions like the IWW to raise the general standard of living for those still in the dominant economy. Meanwhile, the shadow economy would attract small businesses and use an alternative currency that was valued at the average labor hour participants had earned in the dominant economy.
Mainly a voluntary leveling scheme that protected its participants who were all expected to live spartan lives, only raising their worth by seizing jobs with higher value or by doing well in other ways in the dominant economy like striking for higher wages or being a successful small business person. The building of co-operative housing (communes) was to cut costs in the long run.
Anyways, this doesn't have anything to do with Chaos Anarchy other than to point out how without knowing of the existence of an anarchist milieu, but studying their ways can create diluted experiments. Ironically the end of the Progressive Libertarian Party was the result of a punk rock anarchist who was also the Brujah clan leader in our LARP interacting with our group. His anarchist communism challenged our views, so we opted to dissolve the party, never to re-organize it. I still remained sympathetic to market anarchism up until my participation in RAAN, where I first became an anarchist communist (platformist), then close to a year later, dropping platformist views and moving towards post-left views, eventually returning to egoism and then nihilist anarchy, which fit my implicit views on an anarchy I had thought no longer existed.
Bob Black, Hakim Bey and Noam Chomsky all were part of the 90s anarchism that interacted regularly with right wing libertarians, objectivists and market anarchists. Even Chuck0 was a market anarchist. Seattle '99 and the black bloc changed this direction as Internet anarchists began interacting with the larger milieu. Now market anarchism is largely rejected by those holding the anarchist identity.
Many Discordians stilll hold to right wing libertarian and market anarchist views. My issue with the Discordian status quo is that it is more about only about questioning ones views on religion and value and encouraging people to think for themselves, but beyond this, offers little that could be interpreted as radical by itself.
Sorry for the long tangent, talking about type 3 anarchy brings me to have nostalgia. I've always been more of a goth/industrial fan more than a fan of punk, but the "destroy" anarchist themes seemed to make more sense than anything Crass or the Clash had to say.
Read most of the Illuminati, but never finished it. I have this thing where I can't finish a book I enjoy because I don't want it to end. Haven't read other Robert Anton Wilson books, though read a lot of his ideas.
I wouldn't mind checking out the views from the games you are talking about. The TMNT thing threw me off when I first learned it was a Rifts spin off game before it became a popular cartoon. I never learned its rules. I mainly was a D&D fan, though played Rifts somewhat. My current games are still 3.5 D&D, Star Wars Galaxies and the new WoD.
On topic again: The attraction of "Chaos Anarchy" seems to be absorbed a great deal by so many factors. Perhaps there is a problem with main anarchy recuperating "Chaos Anarchy", so maybe the vein of thought needs detailed so the future delinquents can just hop right in and make destroy rather than go off on a tangent like I did
— 5 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Very interesting. Your tangents are cool. Very good to know. It will take me some time to sift threw these texts. i skimemd and read through bob's text. Good stuff to hear his stuff which reassures and affirms these ideas we've been discussing on some levels. While this is good again i still wish there is a wealth of elaboration on this type three. Does bob have any print books where all this is placed in (i'm more of fan of hardcopy books). How exactly is Noam chomsky related to this? just curious. I was reading an interview a while back and bob didn't bring up how chaos can be explained with anarchy I'm really surprised there barely is a base or movement. Its still all about searching.This however makes me think twice about what he says in the text that you sent me:
This is taken from : theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101 (read all)
"Q: One definition of “anarchy” is chaos. Isn’t that what anarchy would be — chaos? "
"A :Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, wrote that “liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Anarchist order is superior to state-enforced order because it is not a system of coercive laws, it is simply how communities of people who know each other decide how to live together. Anarchist order is based on common consent and common sense."
ummmmmm. anyways
There are a few books ; cyber culture and chaos : www.amazon.com/Chaos-Cyber-Culture-Timothy-Leary/
rules of chaos: www.amazon.com/Rules-Chaos-Stephen-Vizinczey/dp/0226858928( the author is a absolute douche i contacted with a brief question regarding any link to philsophical chaos or chaos-anarchy a while back harshly remarks. He's too old to understand i guess
Here's another book I found in regards to chaos theory ( but more applied) www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Social-Sciences-Applications/dp/0472084720.
I borrowed it from the local library but i found it to be kinda technical and boring. I could give it another try
I'm still a huge fan of TMNT. Here's an extract from the original and rare game.
Copywright 1985 TMNT and other strangeness:
Anarchist (selfish)
"This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is the insurgent, gambler and high roller. The uncommited freebooter who is more likely to be a crimefighter because he enjoys the thrill of danger and excitement than any cause. THis character will at least consider doing anything if the price is right or challenge great. Like moths drawn to a flame, the anarchist is attracted to the lure of hte impossible, dangerous and the underdog. They are intrigued by power, glory, and wealth. Life has meaning but his has the greatest meaning. Innocent lives are protected, but occasionally some must be sacrificed for the greater cause. Laws and rules infringe on his personal freedom and were meant to be broken. He wil not hesitate at using strong arm techniques, breaking and entering , theft, harrassment, and destruction of private property, and so on. This includes acting as judge, jury and executioner. After all there is the wrong way and his way. These characters are usually the daring vigilante or anti-hero who feeles the end justifies the means. The anarchist aligned person is always looking for the best deal and self-gratification and will work with good, selfish or evil to attain his goals. The anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil: rebelling and bending the law to fit his needs. "
"Anarchist characters will...
1. May keep his word.
2. Lies and cheats as he feels necessary
3. Are not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly knock-out, attack or beat up and unarmed foe.
4. Never kill an innocent but may harm or kidnap.
5 Will use torture to extract inforamtion but not likely to do so for pleasure.
6.Seldom kills for pleasure.
7. Is not likely to help someone without an ulterior motive even if its only to show off.
8. Rarely works within law unless it serves his purpose
9.Constantly breaks the law to achieve his goals.
10. Has little respect for authority, the law, or self-discipline.
11. Does not work well wihin groups, tends to do so as he pleases despite order to the contrary.
12. Will take "dirty money" or items without hesitation.
13. May betray a friend"
END
Industrial music even goth related music certainly has more depth and flavor than punk( to me at least) was just mentioning it within a historical context)
Personally i'm just revisiting things like anarchy and occultism etc... trying to see whats interesting and useful.
I've been through phases of especially during teen years of trying different things and being into a lot of different ideas.
Just revisting some, just for the sake of it. See what i can relate to what's meaningful on some level. Its also an interest.
Off topic :Do you know anything about the origin of the typical over used A symbol with the sides of the A coming out of the O? was it before the punk movement? How did it come to be? — 5 days ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 5 days ago by shothit The over-extended A is a result of graffiti. I'd say it is more in agreement with chaos than order, when done. The Brujah clan symbol for Vampire: The Masquerade, as White Wolf designed it uses it in this manner.
I use the dirty circle-a in my graffiti as well and it must come from punk graffiti. I really want to say its relationship is tied to punk culture as a rejection of order and the establishment. A rejection of the status quo. The interpretation of anarchy as order sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Perhaps that is what it meant to Proudon, but Proudon's use of "anarchist" was more a shock value because his system happened to be anarchist. If I wrote "KAOS" on the wall, the "A" would be a dirty circle-a. I've seen it this way many times as well.
I'll touch on the rest later after some time. — 5 days ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Was wondering if you lost interest in this subject or discussion.
If not :
Here's another article i found: libcom.org/library/socanlifean4
What do you make of this? Seems riddled with sarcasm. — 3 days ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 2 days ago by shothit Well, I suppose Noam Chomsky doesn't matter too much to Chaos Anarchy other than he is an example of the low point of the anarchist movement. It got so low that people forgot what anarchists were all about, only vaguely remembering anarchists were bomb throwers. Chomsky was someone that wanted to be different from the Marxists, perhaps also wanting to avoid Cold War attitudes to his work. USA vs. USSR was a strong mindset. You still see this desire to move as far away from what could be considered Marxist-Leninist in today's anarchists who might otherwise be considered close to some of the libertarian Marxisms in Europe. So while Marxism descended, anarchists ascended in interest. Noam Chomsky is a reflection of this, just as "chaos anarchy" is a reflection of it. However, chaos anarchy is less attached to academic pursuits and is more an expression of juvenile delinquents, graffitists, gang members and so on, as we have sort of already went over.
I'll have to have time to review these links, maybe draft an article for discussion related to them when I can. Sorry I can't give more time at the moment, as a chaotic, I go in many directions and attempting to commit to things sometimes causes me to lose commitment. Not a good thing, as I probably could be a successful writer if I could stay focused. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2012/07/09/greece-chaos-just-around-the-corner-by-the-r-o-conspiracy-of-cells-of-fire-and-theofilos-mavropoulos/
this also proved to be of interest. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) Well, the links are broken and I did manage to get the basic idea that was wanted to be covered found here, I believe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
The "butterfly effect" seems to be of particular importance to the development of a chaos anarchy. Through propaganda of the deed, we feel there is the ability that our small actions will create unknown affects on society, which may help create further disorder that leads towards the undermining of the controlling order.
The problem with chaos theory or perhaps it isn't a problem at all, is that is actually another form of order, in a way. To discordians, this is an eristic/aneristic dilemma where we can see "all the order in the world" and "all the chaos in the world" by simply shifting how we view it. discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Eristic_Illusion
To then build the theory of "chaos anarchy" we have:
- The spreading of cookbooks for diy experimentation.
- The use of sophisticated pranks, hoaxes and general mischief similar to Hakim Bey's concept of poetic terrorism.
- Propaganda that is about the spread of chaos, discord and destruction. This differs a great deal from the left, which is about how enemies are getting their just deserts. To a chaos anarchist, the enemy might deserve it, but is secondary to the spreading of chaos, which is more interesting and important.
- An attempted focus on spreading the message of chaos to juveniles, gangs, musicians, hackers, internet trolls and artists.
- Having an invisible effect, where chaos anarchist actions cause others to act in different ways to create ruptures where the chaos anarchist is not implicated. Heightening the conflict of opposing forces to where a rupture might occur despite none of the forces holding any views that might be "good" to the chaos anarchist.
Not really sure if this is going anywhere and if this is something that can actually be practiced by anyone. It is not a tendency that would be accepted by the wider anarchist milieu and would probably be the most reviled.
A group that practiced this type of "chaos anarchy" could of been the Lords of Chaos en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Chaos_%28group%29 — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) A criticism of the "Lords of Chaos" is that some of their activities had little to do with fighting domination, but rather doing acts of chaos that sometimes were enforcing racist or homophobic narratives. On the other hand, the variety of devices and the style of activities were almost always done in a way that could be compared to Hakim Bey's "poetic terrorism".
The Trenchcoast mafia, the natural selector, the Beasts of Satan and other similar groups could all be looked at for inspiration. As far as anarchist content to be found within them, they might not have much going on other than on a deeper psychological examination. These individuals and groups may of acted as a result of bullying and being more disaffected as individuals than feeling some sort of collective oppression or exploitation. Who they acted for is primarily themselves. They are expressing their own power and that power may be egoist in ways, but not really anarchist. If they are fully embraced as practitioners, "chaos anarchy" may be more of a "chaos egoism" that is separate from anarchists. — 1 day ago by hpwombat (1,930 points) – edited 1 day ago by hpwombat
You’re back...great. I do see a lot of valid and good points and examples here.
Did you find any bits of the other books online I mentioned? I'm planning to order some.
I wouldn't give up so fast: I do think that chaos anarchy theory could be more grounded in a similar way to taz, deeper containing more of a dada like manifesto style and imply chaotic anarchic behavior within more of the context and order including more depth in the subject.
Maybe we can come up with it or I will elaborate sometime later.
The reason why I posted a link to chaos theory in the social sciences is because it’s linked to real case studies and other things and it’s also less jargony than reading stuff about physics etc... Its worth a check
Thanks for the names. Here's what I think. Feel free to disagree though. No prob.
I can see what you’re saying as these groups maybe had a nihilist-image but your right they don't have much to do with chaos anarchy, but rather some kind of pseudo nihilist-egoism rooted in teen alienation/angst or and mental imbalance/ disorder.
I didn't read a whole lot of their TCM's writing don't know much but i
don't think would qualify as even a proper movement as lot of stuff seems drawn straight from 90's industrial bands and video games and movies . This natural selector guy seems like a school shooter copycat. All these people seem to me as teens with a suppressed misguided rage and/or mental disorders posing as pseudo-nihilists
Beasts of Satan seem to be a satanic group. Most of these actions were done in the satanic panic and Scandinavian black metal crimes in the 80's and 90's. A lot of it is centered on cult-like, misguided or fetishized violent crimes. Find it rather different these subjects altogether have a different nature than this "anarchy chaos" we have been discussing.
I see an ironic similarity with Anarchism and Satanism. (Not a Satanist here or advocating any beliefs) But Devil Worship or paganistic theistic Satanism /dark or evil worship is often treated in the same way chaos anarchy or egoist anarchism is treated when compared to Anarchism or Laveyian Satanism.
The funny thing is both Anarchism and Laveyian Satanism are metaphors unrelated to the original meanings. (anarchists don't accept the unpredictability that anarchy allows for, Laveyian Satanists don’t worship a devil or acknowledge Devil/God exists (only a archetypical symbol they are fixated on for which they select on the "good –humanistic -rational" traits only of) Both seem to be the majority in their fields and reject their older definitions (citing they don't exist, they don't represent the real or true version of this belief etc..)
I think devil worship even the more constructive or non-violent or malicious types - are still pretty fascistic and leave a lot more room to be self-destructive. With spell casting and ritual practice. Think that stuff has more control over you and has more of probability to harm you than chaos principals.
With chaos anarchy you have more of a chance of controlling your chaos without having to prove yourself in the same way.
I think the cyber punk movies provide a great deal of insight into chaos anarchy at least superficially :
Re-watching Robocop, blade runner, strange days ... wait for neuromancer www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/
I do feel like we are moving into more of a state where cyberpunk themes are becoming more relevant:
Large Corporate control and ongoing globalized branding
Things moving or being significantly centered around - computers - digital technology; which has become less expensive and more compact Online monitoring, and profiling
Greater loss of the Paper and Ink era
Constant Economic/Political crises
I do feel like this more relevant now that it was like in 2004 or something. I do think that it perpetuates a certain order as opposed to the chaos of the internet or free will.
But I believe "cyberpunk" was more relevant and interesting when specific things about computer technology were not developed enough (used by a much smaller percentage and therefore the intention as subversive tool for or embracing chaos was much innocent and different than how it turned out to be after it was consumed by the masses as an evolutionary process.Making it seem kind of irrelevant and dated today to me in some way. Still it has it's place though and some truth to an extent.
I think there is also an anti-technology role and anti-civilization of current trends I’ve read amount in some links relating to this chaos topic.
I definitely think technology evolves and is good but it’s good to boycott or at least be aware of certain new tech trends and how they are made to sell or control. Even the internet steals tangibility, real dialogue or underestimates the real value and benefit of “physical" existence of the written word, conversation, music, photograph etc... Under the disguise of practicality, communication and instant access. Which is part of an order that does not see the values in such things, and works to sustain itself sometimes for extreme power and control, alongside progres and good use but not necessarily useful for the rest of us or always good.
Thats why i think its good when you can to do as much as possible without the depedancy of such a technology. Not because of its dark side but because you gain so much more in the real world, even though you might not have the benefits that come or previously came with it
Also the idea of chaos being linked with a primordial lifestyle is an interesting thing to explore
I think punks, Dadaists etc... Have been tossing around anarchy in the time when political anarchists existed as well. I don't think it should concern them as long as these ideas are not trying to fit in the same pool as them.
I recently made a post responding to anarchy vs. anarchism again check it out. I responded to someone who said dismissed chaos from anarchy. Might be a little exaggerated and redundant...but still..
Some more links:
freenet.am/~verq/article_manifesto2.html
www.roninpub.com/cybpun.html
www.391.org/manifestos/19180323tristantzara_dadamanifesto.htm
thinkexist.com/quotations/chaos/
The only issue I see with chaos is when it allows for malicious or evil intentions (whatever that is) to roam free. But then again I think when you want chaos a lot of comes with the territory that you either have to fight or manage, as the good that can potentially come for and from the person can outweigh the bad (whatever that is)
Do you have your own website, profile etc.. : Are you familiar with this blog what do you make of this guy mixing of the two:
anarchyandchaos.wordpress.com/ — 12 hours ago by shothit (200 points) – edited 9 hours ago by shothit subversion.freeforums.net would be a good place to move this discussion. It is currently just a dumping ground for ideas and experimental thoughts, so this would be welcome there. The only other person registered is my partner-in-crime. Feel free to register and we can continue developing this idea.
The "anarchy and chaos" blog is owned by a known chaotic that spreads sexually transmitted diseases, but otherwise has some pretty alright ideas. I've found that despicable people often have a stronger concept of radicalism, perhaps due to ostracism, but that is just a theory. — 3 hours ago by hpwombat
New Response:
I tend to want to distance anarchy away from the leftist (don't mean right or anything else) or collectivist, or eco awareness groups - ideas:
The disgust with technology is for me is about rejecting this over-consumption of these force- fed (only current) tech fads and watering down of high quality to fit practicality and whatever catches attention. and having nothing to having to do with being against wasting resources or depending on money or against industrialization. I've have nothing against these issues.
I think the Jackass (similar groups) crew (as annoying, irrelevant and commercialized they are) practice more chaos than all these groups than these groups we just discussed.
I just remembered that movie SLC punk. Have you watched it? It does depict someone who believes in chaos anarchy. It would be good to dissect the origins or logic and flow of the characters beliefs in relation to what we've been discussing. I plan on going over Steveo's rants. You want to give it shot as well? I think the script is online.
So what do you make of the themes, links and other things that I brought up?
