Play Fiercely! Our Lives Are at Stake!

The thing that has distinguished anarchism from other conceptions of radical transformation is that anarchists have generally considered their ideas to be something to live here and now as much as possible as well as goals to be realized on a global scale. While there have certainly been anarchists who have chosen to turn their perspective into mere politics, the idea of living anarchy immediately gives anarchism a scope that goes far beyond such meager visions, opening it to the whole of life.

This aspect of anarchism is what makes anarchist practice resemble a game. Let me explain. A game could be describes as an attempt to achieve a specific aim using only those means that fit certain conditions accepted by those involved for the enjoyment they find in following these conditions, even though they may lower efficiency. The aim of anarchist practice would be to achieve a world free of all domination, without state, economy or the myriad of institutions through which our current existence is defined. I cannot claim to know what the most efficient way to get there would be. From an anarchist point of view, there has not yet been a successful revolution, so we have no models for efficiency. But those who desire this end, not out of a sense of duty as a moral cause, but rather as a reflection on a grand scale of what they want immediately, for their own lives, petty calculations of efficiency in achieving this end are hardly a priority. I know that I would rather attempt to achieve this end in a way that gives me the immediate joy of beginning to take back my life here and now in defiance of the social order I aim to destroy.

Here is where anarchist “principles†– the “rules†of the game – come in.
The refusal to choose masters, promote laws, go to the negotiating table with
the enemy, etc. are based on the desire to make our lives our own here and
now, to play this game in a way that gives us joy immediately. So we choose
these “rules†not out of a sense of moral duty nor because they are the most
efficient way for achieving our goals, but rather for the joy we get from living
on these terms.

In this light, we can also understand why in the area in which compromise
is most forcefully imposed on us – the realm of survival in a world based
upon economic relationships, which always opposes the fullness of life – we
will choose whatever methods are necessary to keep us alive (how else
could we play this game). But we will do what necessity imposes on us in
these situations (work, theft, scamming, etc.) as temporary measures for
sustaining our capacity to steal back our lives and fight for the world we
desire, maintaining our defiance in the face of this imposition. This is, in fact,
one aspect of the subversive game in practice, twisting the impositions of this
world against it.

Here, I feel it would be good to draw a distinction between the outlaw and
the anarchist who is playing the game of subversion. Of course, every
anarchist is to some extent an outlaw, since we all reject the idea that we
should determine our activity on the basis of laws. But most outlaws are not
playing the subversive game. Rather they are centered on the much more
immediate game of outwitting the forces of order without seeking to destroy
them. For the anarchist revolutionary outlaw, this immediate game is simply a
small part of a much greater game. She is making a much bigger wager than
that of the immediate “crime†. He is grasping his life now in order to use it to
grasp the world.

So this game combines the goal of destroying the ruling order so that we
can create a world free of all domination with the desire to grasp our lives
here and now, creating them as far as possible on our own terms. This points
to a methodology of practice, a series of means that reflect our immediate
desire to live our lives on our own terms. This methodology can be
summarized as follows:
1) direct action (acting on our own toward what we desire rather than delegating action to a representative);
2) autonomy (refusal to delegate decision-making to any organizational body; organization only as coordination of activities in specific projects and conflicts);
3) permanent conflict (ongoing battle toward our end without any compromise);
4) attack (no mediation, pacification or sacrifice; not limiting ourselves to mere defense or resistance, but aiming for the destruction of the enemy). This methodology
reflects both the ultimate aim and the immediate desire of anarchist revolutionary practice.

But if we are to consider this practice as a game, it is necessary to
understand what type of game this is. We are not dealing with a game in
which two (or more) opponents are competing against each other in an effort
to achieve the same goal. In such a game, there could be room for
compromise and negotiation. On the contrary, the subversive game is a
conflict between two absolutely opposed aims, the aim of dominating
everything and the aim of putting an end to all domination. Ultimately, the
only way this game could be won is through one side completely destroying
the other. Thus, there is no place for compromise or negotiation, especially
not for the anarchists who are clearly in a position of weakness where to
“compromise†would, in fact, be to give up ground.

The aims, principles, methodology and understanding of the nature of the
battle at hand describe the anarchist revolutionary game. As with any game,
it is from this basis that we develop strategy and tactics. Without such a
basis, talk of strategy and tactics is just so much babble. While tactics are
something we can only talk about in the specific contexts of deciding what
moves to make at specific points, it is possible to speak in a more general
way about strategy.

Strategy is the question of how to go about reaching one’s goals. This
requires an awareness of a certain factors. First of all what is the context in
which one is trying to achieve these goals? What relationship do the goals
have with the context? What means are available for achieving these goals?
Who might act as accomplices in this endeavor? These questions take on an
interesting twist for anarchists, because our goal (the eradication of all
domination) is not just something we want for a distant future. Not being good
christians, we aren’t interested in sacrificing ourselves for future generations.
Rather, we want to experience this goal immediately in our lives and in our battle against the ruling order. So we need to examine these questions in
terms of this dual aspect of our goal. The question of context involves
analyzing the broader global context, the nature of the ruling institutions, the
broader tendencies that are developing and the potential points of weakness
in the ruling order and the areas for potential rupture. It also involves
examining the immediate context of our lives, our voluntary and involuntary
relationships and encounters, the immediate terrains that we traverse, our
immediate projects and so on. The relationship between what we are striving
for and the general context of this social order is one of total conflict.
Because we are striving not only to destroy domination, but also to live
immediately against it, we are enemies of this order. This conflict is deeply
ingrained in our daily lives, in the variety of activities that are imposed on us
by the rule of survival over life. So this conflict is central to determining our
strategy. Since part of our goal is to grasp our lives back here and now, our
means need to embody this. In other words, any means that involves
surrendering our grasp on our lives (such as voting) is already a failure. But
this is where it becomes necessary to distinguish what activities constitute
such a surrender (voting, litigation, petitioning, bargaining with the enemy)
and which can be incorporated into the reappropriation of one’s life and the
attack against institutions of domination (for example, a temporary job,
certain sorts of scams, etc., that give one access to certain resources,
information and skills that are of use in one’s subversive activity). And our
accomplices could be anyone, regardless of whether they have a conscious
anarchist critique or not, who uses means in their specific battles against
what immediately dominates and oppresses them that correspond to our own
– means through which they are actively grasping their lives and struggles as
their own immediately. And our complicity would last only as long as they
used such means, ending the moment that they give up their autonomy or
begin to bargain with their rulers.

Having established this basis, here are a few areas for discussing strategy:

Survival vs. the fullness of life – Strategies for continually overturning the
dominance of survival over our lives, for making our projects and desires
determine how we deal with survival to the greatest extent possible – for
example, when one needs to take a job, using it against the institution of work
and the economy through theft, giving things away, sabotage, using it as a
free school to pick up skills for one’s own projects, always seeing it as a
temporary means to ends of one’s own and being prepared to quit as soon as one’s desire requires it.

Solidarity – There are two distinct aspects to this.
1) There are many flare-
ups of social conflict that partially reflect the desire to take back life and
destroy domination and that use a methodology like that described above,
but without a full conscious critique on the part of the participants. How do we
connect our conscious, ongoing conflict with the ruling order to these flare-
ups of conflict in a way that fits with our aims, “principles†and methodology?
Since evangelism and “moral leadership†conflict with these “principles†by
turning us into pawns of a cause that we are trying to promote, we need to
think in terms of complicity and straightforwardness.
2) Then there are the
times when the enemy grabs some of our comrades and accomplices and
locks them up. There is a habit in these situations of falling into a framework
of support/social work/charity. In terms of our aims and desires, I think this is
a huge mistake. Without denying the necessity in building defense funds and
keeping communication open, our primary question is how to turn this
situation into a way for attacking the ruling order. The anti-prison activities of
the French group Os Cangaceiros give some food for thought here.

Small-scale, everyday ruptures – There are events that happen every day on
a small scale that cause temporary breaks in the social routine. How can we
use these subversively against this order, to expose the reality of this society
and to open other possibilities? How can we create such ruptures in a way
that undermines resignation and acceptance of normality?

Large scale ruptures – Disasters, riots, local and regional uprisings all cause
ruptures that can reveal a great deal about the ruling order and that move
people to self-activity, generosity and a temporary rejection of the moral order
of this society. How can we take advantage of such situations in a timely
manner? What can we do to help extend the awareness and the rejection of
the moral order beyond the moment? How can we expose the various
politicians and bureaucrats of rupture – political parties, union leaders,
militants and activists – without coming across as another one of that
parasitical bunch?

So there is a vast and challenging game before us, one that I believe
could make our lives into something marvelous. It is a game we have to play
fiercely, because in this game our lives are the stake. There are no
guarantees, no sure-fire methods for winning. But for each of us, as
individuals, there is one sure-fire way to lose. That is to give in, to resign
oneself to what the ruling order imposes. Who’s ready to play?

Willful Disobedience, Volume 5, Number 3, Spring, 2006