Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Welcome to Infoshop News
Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 07:50 PM UTC

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy

Anarchist MovementAnarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion. On Friday, March 17, 2006, the long awaited film version of Alan Moore’s classic graphic novel, V for Vendetta, will premier throughout the US. V for Vendetta is the story of an anarchist who dismantles a fascist state through propaganda of the deed, inspiring the masses to revolt with a vision of building an anarchist future. The book’s protagonist does not simply promote vague anti-authoritarianism or nondescript appeals to “question authority” but explicitly and compellingly calls for the masses to eliminate the state and replace it with anarchy.
Unsurprisingly, this radical message has been lost in the translation to Hollywood’s watered-down film version. Warner Bros. presents a hero rebelling against fascism and advocating “freedom”, yet never suggests that until the state is destroyed, no one will truly be free. Alan Moore has described the script of the film as “rubbish” and had demanded that his name be removed from it.

Time and again, anarchists have seen our message distorted, our comrades martyred, and our stories erased by the corporate and governmental
servants of the ruling class. We cannot allow this to happen again!

An ad hoc group of anarchists in New York City have launched AforAnarchy.com, a website and education campaign designed to reinject anarchist politics into V for Vendetta and radicalize audiences of the film.

We are calling for anarchists everywhere to use the film as an opportunity for education and dialogue. Through the use of literature, speakouts, lit tables, and street theater outside movie theaters showing the film, we can inspire moviegoers leaving the film to join the fight for a stateless society. In New York, we will begin doing these things at sneak previews on March 16th and will continue at theaters for the duration of the films’s run in theaters.

To this end, we have created a number of ideas and tools that we hope you will find helpful. (Further information and downloads can be found
at AforAnarchy.org in the Contact & Press section):

* We have prepared a flyer to distribute at your local movie theater where V is showing revealing the graphic novel’s anarchist politics and encouraging moviegoers to embrace anarchy. We’ve deliberately kept the politics fairly general in an attempt to create a document that can represent anarchists of all tendencies.

Feel free to modify it to suit the needs of your local community. And of course, if you don’t like this flyer, by all means, create one that you prefer.

* Engage audience through costumed role playing of “deleted scenes”—acting out portions of the graphic novel where V speaks in support of anarchy.

* We have designed sticker mock-ups to promote the website that you can download, print on sticker paper, and stick all sorts of places. Of course, we DO NOT suggest that you put them on V for Vendetta movie ads, as this would be vandalism, and vandalism is against the law.

* While many of us are skeptical of the corporate and in some cases even the alternative media, they can be a powerful vehicle for getting the attention of large numbers of people. While we obviously can’t expect them to accurately represent our entire message, we can at least use them to pique people’s curiosity and drive people to the website, where we can present an unfiltered message, To this end, we have prepared a model press release available on the website that you can send to your local media documenting your V for Vendetta related outreach activities., and will be sending a national press release, which can include information on your local actions if you email it to adam@wetlands-preserve.org.

We invite you to use these resources and join us in any or all of the actions listed above. Our hope is to gain a nationwide, significant, and unsuspected response to the film’s release that will lead moviegoers to a far more radical place than the corporate filmmakers behind this film intended, and help to bring thousands of new people to the anarchist movement. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you.

For Anarchy,

aforanarchy.com

(an ad hoc collective on individual members of groups like New York Metro Anarchist Alliance, NEFAC, Wetlands Activism Collective,
Freegan.info, Students for A Democratic Society, Libertad Skool Collective and other groups)

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=20060314074847304

No trackback comments for this entry.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy | 127 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Renegade on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:53 AM UTC
i am so going see it!

---
~~~I know things~~~
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: MagonistaRevolt on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:08 AM UTC
THIS IS A GREAT CAMPAIGN. I am, for one, really excited both about the movie, and the prospect of getting people to take this struggle from the spectacle of the movie to their own lives. !!! Great job, I hope to see the updates soon, and I'd love to see (and use) the stickers that y'all are going to be uploading... the sooner the better!
W for Wack-owski
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:50 AM UTC
My worry is that the film will be so bad that it'll turn people off of the book. (Gore our ideology instead of the fascists' if you like...)

I like this idea though.
W for Wack-owski
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM UTC
W for Wachowski is right...

but then I don't mean that as a bad thing...

I didn't see the film as a political film, honestly...

Much like the Matrix, the watchowski's did with the screenplay something a lot bigger... they made a film about spiritual enlightenment that and self-actualization that could benefit just about anyone who's ever been to an anti-anything protest

I find it interesting that so many people will go out and see this film for its political implications (of which, outside of the abstract, there are none... it's a movie... you go to a theatre... you pay money... you sit and watch something for 2 hours... wax semantic all you want about how your money is going to the many proletarians of the movie theatre industry all you want... but you're still just watching a fucking movie) and yet walk away from it to do nothing but debate over the validity of the political statement that they percieve to be disseminated through it... Talk isn't just cheap... it's insulting

In the end... the intent and the message of the film are irrelevant... what matters is what <b><i>you</i></b> do with it
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:50 AM UTC

The reviews have been pretty good so far. It's also interesting that right-wingers such as Drudge are trying to trash the movie as "promoting terrorism." We can expect to see 25 articles over at Frontpagemag.com that will trash the movie.

If you are a science fiction fan, please check out Infoshop's own Science Fiction and Fantasy Wiki.

Chuck

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:57 AM UTC
read the book.

since when is anarchism about killing human beings in order to
accomplish goals and settle scores?!?

if anything, this movie and its backlash is going to fuel the anti-anarchist
hysteria accompanying the "green scare."

some might think it's about anarchy, but the majority of people will
think it is about "terrorism," that magic word.

we'll see...
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:27 AM UTC
Doubt it. This movie will probably connect with many people who are tired of government power and excess. I think the "War on Terrorism" has jumped the shark. The word "terrorist" is used to label so many people that it is losing its edge.

Chuck
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:18 AM UTC
spain '36
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:46 AM UTC
"since when is anarchism about killing human beings in order to
accomplish goals"

OH MAN I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING EVER LIKE THAT IN THE HISTORY OF ANARCHISM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:59 PM UTC
i never said it has never occured, i just said that it IS NOT WHAT IT IS
ABOUT.

anarchism does not NECESSITATE such killing, though "anarchists"
might indeed commit them.

besided, the Haymarket Bombing was a covert operation by law
enforcement. the bombs were not from anarchists. though to frame
them was indeed the intent.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 04:02 PM UTC
There is no hard evidence linking anarchists to throwing the bomb at Haymarket, although the evidence suggests that Louis Lingg or one of his buddies may have thrown the bomb.

In any case, most of the dead cops were killed by cops shooting each other during the police riot.

Chuck0
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 26 2006 @ 06:31 AM UTC
Thing is see, its a comic book.

V is a comic book anarchist, he's not really like real anarchists, but thats ok, because anarchists arent really super heros.

I like super heros because they are fun. <b>V is what you get if superman slacks off into his local anarcho bookshop and a lightbulb appears over his head, then screams off and blasts the fash with magical super rockets.</b>

As long as people remember that its just a fantasy, but the ideology of V is quite real, and that anarchism is not what either the conservatives or the sex pistols told you it was.

Or to put it another way, I loved the sex pistols, but I dont believe for a minute that anarchism is "Get pissed. Destroy".
killing people
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:02 PM UTC
The Spanish Revolution was built on gains made through several DECADES of anarchist and socialist organizing. It's unique in that it was a revolution in DEFENSE of those gains.
killing people
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 04:45 PM UTC
actually... i'm pretty sure when they say "revolution" in "spainish revolution" they mean the fascist revolution.. not an anarchist/socialist revolutution... the anarchist response was reactionary, not revolutionary. NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE CNT-FAI
killing people
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 09:27 PM UTC
sorry to quibble but the Revolution in Spain refers to the establishment of collectives and revolutionary militias by the anarchists (and some republican groups) following the outbreak of war in 36. Its generally considered to refer to the period of 1936-37, culminating with the counter-revolution led by the Communists.

btw, i think its a great idea to attempt to educate those who attend V on the anarchist ideas in it - even if I think propaganda of the deed is not the best form of spreading anarchism. Its important to not let the actual ideas present in the film to be usurped by mainstream entertainment.
killing people
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 18 2006 @ 07:44 AM UTC
it's not GooD!!!!
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 23 2006 @ 07:53 PM UTC
The practicioners - or alledged practicioners - of virtually every political position have historical legacies that include examples of violence.

In order to properly judge the moral/political nature and value (or relative lack thereof) of a political philosophy (in this case, Anarchism), you must look to the abstract essence of the doctrine's meaning, which can be found in the text(s) of the theoreticians of any given political position.

In anarchism's case the essense, that can be more-or-less consistently discerned, is that no person - or institution - legitimately has authority over another, i.e., that - in effect - "all men are created equal". And this equality is in terms of their rights to life, which necessarily includes their right to individual autonomy, self-determination and the pursuit of happiness. This is a manifestly pro-American political value, if there ever was one. It is not the product of the worldview of terrorists.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 23 2006 @ 08:53 PM UTC
Addendum to parent post:

The very word, "anarchism", broken down is "an", meaning "not", and "archism", meaning heirarchy.

So, literally: *no heirarchy*, or, in other words, political - which to be meaningful must also include: *economic* - equality among persons. As long as the achievement of this basic idea is firmly grasped as our long-range mission, we are fighters for freedom, not thugs or terrorists.

Terrorism, by contrast, is fundamentally about tyranny, not the expansion of human liberty.

Islamic militants are terrorists. Christian militants are terrorists. Anarchists - predominantly - are not. See the difference? The difference is found in the long-range aims, and the philosophical essenses of those disparate worldviews. In the case of authoritarian, patriarchal, monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity, the long-range goal is theocratic rule, tyranny and a new dark age. In the case of anarchy, the goal is individual freedom, however vaguely that may be apprehended by a given advocate.

One should make the crucial distinction between aggression, on one hand, and self-defense, on the other. Not all uses of force are examples of terrorism or criminality. It is a human right to defend one's self, including, against "The Man", when the situation truly calls for it.

So, while it is possible for a given anarchist to behave as a terrorist (which is, of course, usually debatable, might have actually been an example of legitimate self-defense, and must be examined closely, and in the specific context of each such alledged case), this should by no means prevent one from examining, and independently rendering a just and fair evaluation of the set of abstract ideas, and ideals, denoted by the term anarchism.

So read (and think), people, and *learn*! Try - though it's sometimes hard to do it - to avoid snap judgements, of those alledged "authority" figures, anarchists, and others; and try to carefully look at what is really going on in any given instance, and analyse, before evaluating.

I'm proud to be a liberal, a political progressive, a secularist, and, YES, an anarchist, because justice is on our side. However, to get this message out to the mainstream, and to achieve the happy, free and prosperous world our ideology will result in if it succeeds, we anarchists must be as intellectually focused as possible, in addition to being as politically and socially united as possible.



V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM UTC
this story, from what i gathered from it, is about propaganda of the deed and begs the question that anarchists have been having with eachother forever. its an argument of do the ends justify the means. is violent action justified, and even necessary, when fighting an enemy that one considers tyrannical? it also questions what terrorism is. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:18 PM UTC
I've had twenty years to think about this issue as an anarchist and I've moved towards a position that goes beyond simplistic nostrums about "ends justifying the means" and vice versa.

Sure, I think that most of us want to model the anarchist world we'd like to create and I think most anarchists try to practice methods that fit our visions. On the other hand, capitalism and governments are fighting a violent war against us--just look at the millions they spend to police protests or the long prison terms they are threatening activists with. We have a right to self-defense. Even the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights accepts that oppressed, colonized people have a right to violently resist.

Another argument for violent tactics is that if we don't fight back, then we may not be around to enjoy what we are fighting for. Lastly, the argument that anarchists shouldn't use violence AT ALL is a binary moral argument, that is, it doesn't give any leeway for specific situations. It's kind of stuck at a low level in Kohlberg's theory on the stages of moral development. There are plenty of situations where the use of violence in a specific situation may greatly reduce the amount of violence in the future. This is where I think that propaganda by deed was on the mark. Yes, assassinations remove one person and another takes their place, but there are leaders whose removal by violent means would lead to a significant improvement in the lives of many people (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.)

Chuck0
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:23 PM UTC
I agree with you. Saul Alinsky wrote some good stuff on ends justifying the means. But this may get some people thinking.
Why Anarchists Might Want To Rethink Violence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 25 2006 @ 02:17 PM UTC
Admin,

I feel compelled, strongly, to debunk the primarily pro-violence stance you have asserted, in the hopes that it may at least bring about some debate and perhaps alter some views that I think are fairly incompatible with anarchism. Or, at least, my views on anarchism, which by no means do I assert should be an accepted universal truth. I understand the 'primary' topic is the specific media, but as this is a reply to a post that doesnt mention the specific media itself, I feel it is valid.
Part of my decision to confront your stance, primarily, comes from the fact that you are the 'admin', and I have been taught to apply 'Big Dog Theory' in situations where I am the minority, or it appears I am the minority, and there are many who differ from my objectives.
Big Dog Theory is an action philosophy taught to me in self defense and martial arts, of which I have several years experience in multiple styles. That's neither here nor there, but only a beginning reference point so I can explain the concept. You will come to see that I am a staunch advocate of clarity over brevity, and I prefer to build every stance from the very ground up, as though I was speaking to someone who had no prior experience in the subject. Thus, I wish to state beforing going further, that none of the time I take defining or explaining rudimentary concepts is spurred by the assumption that you are ignorant of them in any way; I do so to fully enhance the assertations and logical validity of my points for anyone who may peruse the section with little experience in the areas I am going to delve into.
Now, onto Big Dog Theory. It works simply like this: When group A and group B have a confrontation, and group A has multiple individuals, while group B has only one, a single 'Big Dog' will emerge from group A, supported by the other individuals in that group, to be the prime source of antagonistic confrontation to group B. This is quite apparent when five guys are going to jump one guy. Invariably, before that happens, out of the five guys, one guy will make himself the 'tough guy' and become either the initiator of physical violence, or the main proponent of it. In the sense of academic and logical discussion, this principle works generally upon the same grounds, however it quite often occurs that a Big Dog, emerges by default, which I concur is the case in this situation. Being the Admin, and claiming 20 years experience, is essentially an authoritative gesture, whether conscious or not, on your part to have your point become more valid than others; even if you consciously disagree with hierarchy and authority, the psychological aspects of your dominance are undeniable. Thus, you become the Big Dog proponent of violence in THIS particular discussion- it does not automatically become a universal trait for you in EVERY situation. Only this one is being discussed, at this point in time.
Now... the situational aspects of Big Dog go to conclude that although the Big Dog will be the prime proponent of confrontation (even if that is a subtle advocation and barely fitting the standards of what we see as 'antagonising' as you are- I make no accusation that you are being conflagoratory at all) the other 'Dogs' will inevitably take part in the attack once the Big Dog starts, but the Big Dog will be the main focus of both groups attention, either supported by group A or focused on by group B. This is a side note, but relevant- I do not expect a series of random attacks by those who may just be perusing and support your opinion- but understanding the psychology will help explain why the action of group B is appropriate.
The appropriate action for group B in this situation, by a self defense or martial arts standard, is to maim or kill the Big Dog, before the rest of group A initiates conflict and group B is overwhelmed. Doing so will set a standard amongst the group; the Big Dog has just been destroyed, all of the 'little dogs' following him, have very little chance, and should rethink their decision to engage.
On an intellectual or academic plane, this standard is similiar but not exactly the same; by deconstructing the stance of the Big Dog, you have a very strong chance to reduce the arguments of the little dogs that basically harp agreement to him/her, and more often than not, add to the debate primarlily in the sense that their stances and advocated logic stem from the primary assertations of the Big Dog- so.. it is most logical to deconstruct the stance of the Big Dog and reduce all of the arguments that come from supporting his assumptions, than to go through one little dog after another, working your way up.
What does this have to do with anarchy and violence? Not so much, although it applies to why I'm choosing your points in specific to dispute. I did include it so that anyone reading this, might take a nugget of knowledge or two from the teaching, and apply it to their anarchist actions and beliefs. It does have a valid stance in our common goals. Don't believe me? We know 9 out of 10 shoe shops get their product from sweat shops in one way or or another; yet, largely, we all agree to go after the Big Dog first- destroy Nike. That sets the standard for the little dog shoes, to change their ways, because when Nike is forced to crumble or change, then they might just become the new Big Dog, and we will focus on them, to their doom.
That long winded introduction being said, I hope at least one person takes something from it, I'd like to address your points on violence and your justifications of violence and your somewhat derogatory statements about non violence.

I am a staunch advocate of non violence, although I cannot call myself at this time a complete pacifist, as I am still learning about it and I am still developing what I try to construct as irrefutable stances advocating it. I cannot call myself a complete pacifist because I am not arrogant enough at this time to say my views on pacifism should be universally accepted by all anarchists even though I have spent quite a while on the topic in my life.
It goes without saying, that I believe and understand there to be as many different forms of anarchism as their are anarchists; I think it's intellectually and morally corrupt to assume that as an anarchist you can take the reigns of power over humanity and assert that your view of anarchism is the only right one. I hope we can agree on that. I find that the further I delve into my beliefs as an anarchist, the more I come to believe that for us to consider ourselves anarchists, we must by default accept that each anarchist is unique, and that should be one of our prime tenets of anarchism, beyond ONE point:
All anarchists are tied to the stance that authority is the prime cause of human conflict, suffering, degradation and woe. We can share in the conclusion that hierarchy is the birthchild and organization of authority, and at times even go so far as to say class distinction (in the broadest sense of the term to include race, gender and all the other individual defining points we see as oppressed) is the product of hierarchy.
Now, beyond those shared truths, which I hope I have stated clearly enough that they are not disputed, I apologize if I have not, we can come to many deritvitave beliefs, about the structure of the response on our part. That is not my main point of debate, but is worth noting for clarity's sake. The belief in green anarchsim or communist anarchism or feminist anarchism, is not under my scrutiny in any way; if it fits you, and you are not denying the shared truth we start at (and that includes advocating a structure change that still includes authority and hierarchy) you are, by all means, a tried and true anarchist, to me. I may be including this side note to address the childish squabbling and sniping by the 'anarchists' who want to decry everyone else- while I don't see them justifying in any actuality the assertations they base themselves upon. It's quite easy to hack at someone else without having the courage to define yourself, so no one has the chance to turn that same scrutinizing eye on you.. essentially I find the 'anarchists' who do so, are attempting to assert a childish authority over others, and cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Now, back to authority. We are forced to ask, as anarchists, what is authority? What is it's substance? What makes something an act of authority? How does authority function?
I cannot say my answer should be universal, and if you dispute it I welcome that in order to further hone it's validity, or alter it in the face of logic, but, from what I have come up with from my studies, if hierarchy is the birth child of authority, force and violence, the two tied together, are the sexual juices that spur it along.
Let me try to reduce my stance to it's simplest point: I believe that reason, is anathema to authority, in that the advocates of reason have no need for authority- social change comes through the shared acceptance of logical validity, not through unequal coersion of the individual. In this sense of reason, it is similiar to 'Mutual Aid' but on the intellectual, moral, spiritual level, rather than the physical. Sharing reason between free parties, while it may be disputed and change and grow, is not an act of authority on either part, while the parties involved are equal to air their views and challenge one another and change; it is the lifesblood of free peoples, after meeting all material needs. It is the prime motivator in true growth of the individual and society. Before it is countered that reason can be used to coerce, some inspection will show that it is most often, dogma, or belief, in an attempt to impute a code of behaviour on others, with the underlying threat of negative response, and not shared reasoning, that is the factor in that situation.
Authority, on the other hand, and hierarchy, do not need reason. While individuals may employ, quite often, a combination of (often flawed) reason and force, the essence of authority is the reliance on force and consequently violence or the threat of violence, to coerce individuals into accepting the authority or hierarchy.
I dont like quoting other people because I feel it is somewhat derogatory to the spirit of anarchism and the development of the free thinker to rely on another to enforce the logic of a point- a point should be valued on its worth, not on who believes it- but I will say that many anarchists have come to agree the definition of the state is primarily being the one single political force in a geographical area that above all else reserves the right to use force and violence on individuals, while denying individuals the right to use force or violence themselves. This is an essential crux to the point that authority is at its base, the use of force and violence. It is almost universally agreed that the nation state is the extension of hierarchy and authority, and if the nation state's primary definitive factor is the use of violence, then we must logically conclude that violence and authority become somewhat synonymous. This is the belief I hold, and I do not espouse the stance that it must be universal, but I do welcome any academic challenge to it, in order for my own beliefs to either become more valid, or change in turn to newer logic I have not yet encountered.
Now, if we have come to these two conclusions:
1. Anarchism at it's root is the opposition to authority.
2. Authority is centered on the use of violence.

How can we call oursleves anarchists, and advocate the use of violence? Is that not contradictory at best, and hypocritical at worst? Does not the very base of our ideal, revolve around the rejection of violence, if we agree on those points? Is not violence justified against women, justified against minorities, justified against other nations, justified against children, justified against other political views.. the very opposite of shared reason and protection of individual growth? How can we advocate violence against those who disagree with us, even violently themselves, and remain anarchists? Is that not the same as the violence used to oppress us, just justified from another point of 'moral' or 'intellectual' grounds? What makes our option of violence 'more just'?
The only argument here is the one you present:
'We have a right to self-defense.'
I'm not arguing for or against self defense, just the basic point, again, that violence is an expression of authority, and the although the justifications may vary, every time violence is used, the initiator convinces themselves it is justified- so, how do we know that as anarchists, we can still call ourselves anarchists, and still assure ourselves our justifications are the right ones and resort to uses of authority, while those we oppose are not justified because they are figures of authority, even though they may truly believe they are? The best reply to this, I believe, is this argument:
'If someone is holding your head under water, is it an act of authority to stop them to save your own life, even if you must use violence?'
Now we become entangled in the mire of justification through oppression, I cannot say with any conviction that one has no right to desire to keep living when someone is going to kill them. I can only respond with this:
'Pacifism is not just the ideal that you will not harm another. Pacifism is the dedication and faith in the future of a human condition where war and violence are minimized, and the willingness to die knowing the world is not yet ready for your beliefs, rather than kill and live in a world where you have made those ideals obsolete. '
I hope the two points can bring about some discussion, and... shared reasoning. Mind you, the basis of my point, is not the advocation of pacifism, but rather how adhering to the purist sense of anarchism, if we agree on the definitions, results in pacifism becoming a natural extension.
The idea may be 'radical' in the sense that it is on the fringes of our thought streams, but there is a validity, at least spiritual (and I say spiritual, not religious) to it, in the notion that if you truly believe in a world without any authority, any violence, then you may well be willing to accept that someone else in their ignorance, will kill you, and that will not change your beliefs, or your fundamental stance that you will not harm another.
I believe, without revering them, it may be a fundamental point of reason of most of the icons throughout history that we have considered to be great 'spiritual' teachers, have advocated a primarily similiar stance on violence. And I make no assertations that the realm of spiritual thought be any more valid, or less valid, to the growth and freedom of humanity, than the physical and mental realms.
Countering your statements about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc... is fairly easy and rudimentary. As anarchists, we are often reminded not to hold others up as shining beacons of who 'we' are; we are individuals first and foremost, and it is our actions as individuals that makes us anarchists, not system-adherents. You take representative individual system-adherent, and make the assumption that it is his individuality, that is the cause for the system. Even if the individual in question is the main proponent of the system, even it's creator, it is not he who 'pulls the trigger'. The millions of people killed by the Nazis were not killed by Adolf Hitler; it is hero-worship to impute he was the source. Their deaths were caused by the multitudes of system-adherents who subjugated their individuality to the dogma of the hierarchy. Removing Hitler or Mao or Stalin, doesnt not destroy the system; in Hitler's case, the system was inevitably collapsing before he died. In Mao's case, the system continued killing after his death. Assassinating either may have had some sway, but there is no logical stance other than dogmatic assumption, that violence against them would have caused their systems to completely crumble and save lives. They were the idea makers at best; the killers existed in the multitudes and for your point to have any validity, you would really have to come to the conclusion that the mutlitudes of system-adherents would have to be assassinated to prevent the deaths; that is, essentialy, the call for war against them.
I would like to address the assertation, that the advocation of 'no violence at all' being:
'a binary moral argument, that is, it doesn't give any leeway for specific situations. It's kind of stuck at a low level in Kohlberg's theory on the stages of moral development.'
This, I feel, is more rooted in opinion than any other stance in your post. I could easily counter that violence is the binary moral argument- it resorts to the base quantitative theory that overwhelming force creates justification. That being said, I think my previous statement shows it's pretty clear that for opinions, you can assert that resorting to violence, is essentialy anti-human, and far lower on the scale of moral development, even if Kohlberg disagrees. The stance of the ardent pacifist, the spiritual leader, the 'pure' anarchist... are all attacked by your idea that it is a low moral stance, and I cannot disagree with that opinion more. The low moral stance, it would seem, is to justify your essentially selfish belief system and harm or kill to force others to conform to it, regardless if it is anarchy or capitalism.
When the anarchist resorts to violence, he becomes not only the shining example the system holds up as to why we 'need to be controlled' but also the same moral equivalent as the executioner of the political prisoner or lynching-man of the slave. Every individual believes that the act of violence they take is justified, regardless of whether it is accepted as moral or not. Every act of violence by the anarchist is another piece of fodder for the system to convince the masses that anarchism revolves around violence and chaos. If the anarchists had access to inform the masses the way the system has access to use dogma to coerce the masses, this might be different, but being as anarchists are rarely, if ever, heard in their true context, and the masses are constantly bombarded with pro-authoritarian dogma, it is foolish at best to justify using violence in one situation when that use of violence is going to be twisted to justify even more violence in multiple others, by the system.
This next point may be radically different from the mains of the thought streams as well, but it needs to be heard, to bring up the discussion surrounding it and advance the causes of anarchism. It is quite possible that the best thing that could happen to anarchists on the scale of world understanding, aside from a global revolution of thought towards the meaning and being of anarchism where we are seen as who we truly are and what we truly advocate, the best stance we may take, may well be to become the pacifist victims of unjustifed oppression and violence. I understand that the unthinking mass may well shriek at the thought of not 'fighting the system' but I assert that there are multiple ways to bring down authority, and that violence may well be the least effective of them, as it is essentially turned time and time again into justification for oppressing not just anarchists, but all humans by the state of hierarchy.
The 'noble victim' is the exact role adopted by secular and religious icons to incredible effect in our history. The stance of the pacifist who will not harm another, even as they harm or kill him or her, has done more to solidify human belief systems and transcend the cultural roles of nation states, through philosophy or religious belief than almost any act of violence. The prime evidence of the validity of moral superiority of the many icons of the past that spurred on much religious belief and spiritual belief and social reform.... regardless of which religion or country, is quite often, the turning point where the individual accepts their death at the hands of those who employ violence, rather than fight them. In doing so they prove to the masses present that they are the correct path, the superior stance, and the morally proper adherent to the true goals of humanism (and speciesism!) I wont bring up the specifics of jesus, or ghandi or any countless buddhists or civial rights activists (hmm, i can think of ONE in particular) because i dont want to build an argument based on icon worship; it isnt about what any single one of them did, but about the common thread of stance they all adhered to that proved they were correct and the ones oppressing them were wrong. I don't think I need to say much more about this in order to show that it completely disproves the statement you made about how:
'if we don't fight back, then we may not be around to enjoy what we are fighting for.'
I think it's pretty clear through my previous point that that idea is just fear based and not logical, if we agree that anarchism is the proper path for humanity to take. If you don't believe it is, why are you an anarchist?
In fact, the opposite may well be true. As long as the anarchists use every form of media at their disposal to present the image, nothing may well better convince the masses that the system is violent and oppressive and anti-human, than the images of anarchists refusing to take part in violence and being attacked themselves. I'mnot advocating that anyone go out and get themselves killed to be the next great martyr, but rather that we need to think seriously about the concept that passive resistance combined with media outreach to the masses may well be a stronger option to introducing others to the goals of anarchism than any act of violence. Nothing may well better prove anarchy to be the opposite of fascism, as I believe it is. If we look at all political theory as a simple see-saw or teeter-totter, anarchism sits on one end, and fascism sits on the far other. It is widely accepted that fascism is the enemy of humanity, even by system-adherents; but the dogmatic coercion of the masses to believe that anarchy is violence and chaos stops the majority of people from realizing that anarchy is anathema to fascism. If people began to see, time and time again, that the system was acting primarily in a fascist manner with its advocation of violence, and anarchists were behaving in the purest sense of humanist (and speciesist!) ideals in non-violence, then more and more people would come about to adopting anacrhism as a viable alternative. This method of system deconstruction seems far more likely and more humane and more logical than advocating violence in the moment.

I want to finish with a few simple points. I understand, first, that this is exceptionally long; please do not censor or delete it just because it is. I think the points I have made are all logical and all applicable to your post. I could see advocating it's removal if I were simply being self-congagulatory about the stance of pacifism, but I feel I have brought up both points and counter points for the sake of spurring on reasoned discussion in our community. If you think this post is good but should be somewhere else, perhaps even a topic of it's own, contact me and I will rework the minor details so that it stands on it's own as an opinion or editorial piece for another column, without relying on your post for backbone.
If you disagree wholeheartedly with what I have said, I welcome that; it is the spirit of individual thought and growth that makes us anarchists and I believe sharing thought and growth and challenging each other is crucial to our survival as an alternative to authoritative hierarchy.

-Keith Graves-
sleepingtao@yahoo.com
Why Anarchists Might Want To Rethink Violence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 25 2006 @ 04:30 PM UTC
but what is violence?

Is the black bloc smashing the windows of niketown in seattle violence? Or is that self defense or the defense of people victumiszed by nike?

I don't particularly agree with the idea that going around assasinating authority figures either but I belive that in some forms, yes, violince is nessasary.
Why Anarchists Might Want To Rethink Violence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 25 2006 @ 09:52 PM UTC
The institutions that benifit the most from the violence/non-violence, peace/war binery tends to be the state. Violence is in and of itself just a fluctuating act of existence. An expression of a will to power(which can be peacfull to).

I think the debate needs to be reframed to what is instrumental and what is non-instrumental. Paul Virillio for example has some good insights into this question. He is not against violence as such, just the specialized means and ends type that tends to perpetuate statist thinking and rule.

The ordinary people of hot autumn 77 juxtaposed to the red brigades for example.

Logan
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 10:18 AM UTC
True, what I don't like is that this vigilante in the film is performing bombings, which represents the most outthere and negative image of anachists. Fer chirssake anarchism has to do with action and expression outside of governement and corporations, bombings have always been the making of nihilists, or otherwise people who secretly work for the government!

No big studio is gonna finance any movie about what anarchism really IS, as they are capitalists, and the Wackowski bros are capitalists... the true principles of libertarians goes against all what they are!

Could be a great "smash the State" movie, but I'm afraid this will stain the reputation of anarchists even further.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 05:44 PM UTC
If anarchists shy away from the reputation of bomb-throwing maniacs, it's their loss.

I abhor the idea of killing or hurting innocents in any way, and I probably wouldn't ever actually have the nerve to blow something up, but seriously.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 10:21 PM UTC
Umm...

maybe since Leon Czolgosz too out McKinley?

or maybe since Alexander Berkman tried to take out Henry Clay Frick?

or maybe since Peter Kropotkin defended the assasination of tyrants in "Anarchist Morality"?

You can say that you don't agree with this approach to anarchy, but it's absurd to say that it doesn't have precendent withing the anarchist movement.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:54 AM UTC
okay. there is 2 web addresses listed in the posting. it seems the aforanarchy.com works, but not aforanarchy.info
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:02 PM UTC
hey the flyers aren't up on the site yet!! i am going to a free sneak preview tonight and wanted to bring some. and i'd never pay $9 for a fucking movie, so i went to a comic book store where they were giving the tickets out as soon as i heard, and i got the last ones!
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM UTC
Good idea, but this kinda turned me off: "as this would be vandalism, and vandalism is against the law"

So the fuck what? The law is the problem. Why follow it?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: MagonistaRevolt on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:02 PM UTC
tongue, meet cheek.

now foot, meet mouth.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:07 PM UTC
lol it's called sarcasm
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 10:24 PM UTC
Two Words:

Plausible.
Deniability.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 23 2006 @ 09:27 PM UTC
Not all laws are bad, though some, of course, are.

A good law (or set of laws) for example, is the Bill of Rights, which enumerates, and which under more normal political circumstances would protect, individual freedom.

On the other hand, "laws" that have people arrested for marijuana, prostitution, abortion, speech, etc, are obvious examples of the very bad; statutes fit only to be defied or immediately repealed.

Some notion of law as proscriptive is necessary, since every human right implies an enforceable obligation on others to not violate that right.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:24 PM UTC
Since I think my first post got deleted, I'll post again. The idea of anarchists sending anarchist missionairies out to hand out anarchist Chick tracks to convert the unbelievers is idiotic and reactionary. The most effective organizational structure is, without a doubt, the affinity group, a small group of naturally formed associates who like and trust each other and who know each others' goals and desires. If you really want to reach out to people, reach out to people who need your help, who are victims of injustice, who have hopes and dreams that you want to help accomplish, people who have the skills to help you and aleviate the injustices you're a victim of and who can aid your hopes and dreams. Don't go out and proselytize to bring people to the flock of anarchism, that's fucking lame.

Disrupting Hollywood movies and vandalizing ads for Hollywood movies is an excellent idea, especially if it's to get revenge for the butchering of the works of my hero Alan Moore's genius, but do it just for the sake of doing it, don't do it to "spread the word". Do it just to confuse people. Do it during Harry Potter.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:34 PM UTC
Whatever. It gets really old hearing from people who just want to piss on *anything* other anarchists are doing.

I think this outreach effort is awesome. Two thumbs up. Let's get out of our fucking anarchist ghetto and go talk to some people.

Chuck
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:51 PM UTC
Besides, I'm proposing the exact opposite of remaining in an anarchist ghetto. In fact, that's exactly what this article is suggesting we do. It's suggesting we focus our attention on an "anarchist" movie, we should be dressed in jester uniforms screaming nursery at the top of our lungs and pelting the screen with watermelon every time there's a bad Julia Roberts movie, we shouldn't give people a chance to escape our cacophonious chants of anger and joy. It's suggesting we reach out to (let's face it, young, and probably middle class) moviegoers who may be interested in labelling themselves "anarchists" because of a blockbuster movie, instead of reaching out to the people in our home cities who sleep on the cold streets at night.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:56 PM UTC
*nursery rhymes
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM UTC
*movie, when we should be dressed
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:02 PM UTC
The problem with your argument is that it reduces anarchists to two-dimensional people who aren't reaching out the homeless AND talking to people outside of the movie. Every anarchist I know who does homeless activism would probably also see the value of talking to moviegoers about anarchism. Anarchism is about people having a *choice* in what they do as anarchists, be it homeless activism, talking to moviegoers, doing both, doing something else, or doing nothing at all.

Chuck
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:28 PM UTC
Word! Chucks on point here. Put the false dichotomies aside and step into the real! May our resistence be multi-faceted -Vlad

This made me think of Emma.

"I have often heard reformers say that the working class does not revolt because it is not yet wretched and starving enough, and that the sooner economic conditions get worse the sooner they will revolt. This is another wrong conception of men and conditions. Take the coal miners, the most ill paid and il treated wage workers in existence. To try to describe the conditions of the miners of Western Pennsylvania is to attempt the impossible. In many places grown men, with families, have not been able to earn more than $1.50 a week. They are herded together in miserable, filthy hovels, 12 or 15 people occupying one room; for how else can they pay the rent? Yet these men do not revolt, and never will. They have not the strength. They are like animals--dumb, stupid, indifferent, ready to lick the hand that lashes them. But when I reached the districts where they earned $5 and $6 a week (a fortune (?) as they work), I found them carrying themselves with some pride and self respect, and open to ideas. It is therefore an unpardonable mistake to sit with folded hands awaiting the development of things to such a state that it will be too late to act. Men with empty stomachs do not fight for freedom. They fight for bread, and as soon as they get the crust, gnawing on it they forget their good intentions to fight for more. I have not spent 18 weeks in missionary work without learning that it is useless to appeal to the overfed, but still less use to appeal to the underfed. To be successful we must reach that class whose brains have not yet been destroyed by starvation."

Emma Goldman, "A Short Account of My Late Tour," Solidarity, 15 July 1898 (found in Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years, edited by Candace Falk, Barry Pateman and Jessica Moran)

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:39 PM UTC
Though I heard about the butchering of Moore's story from the moment V for Vendetta was announced, this still disappoints me that such a revolutionary message would be canned into something so.. generic.

I will still see the movie, for the sake of seeing it. And then, like the good folks all over, I will continue to promote the dream of stateless society- and the moviegoers will be our audience.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 02:06 PM UTC
Has anyone ever seen the movie Equilibrium?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 04:02 PM UTC
yeah i just saw that recently. i really liked it. missed the beginning, so
will have to find it and watch it all.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Acai on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 08:48 PM UTC
yes, i've got a copy of equilibrium. some cheesy scenes aside, it's a great story! definately something anarchists would enjoy. look for it on pirate bay ;-)
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 06:19 PM UTC
agreed
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 02:58 PM UTC
Hey everybody nice to see there's excitement about this! I'm one person
in the A For Anarchy collective and wanted to say a few things. The first
is KEEP CHECKING BACK to aforanarchy.com because it WILL be heavily
updated in the coming days with much more information and we will be
hopefully hopefully be making available the AMAZING flyer that's been
produced on the site VERY SOON like hopefully tomorrow, i really hope.
We are very sorry that it's taking so long to provide people with
materials to go out to your theaters and do what we're promoting but
we only have so many members and we started this project two weeks
ago, making time a MAJOR factor in the work we're doing, so do check
back soon because we will be making the flyer and everything else
available on there and aforanarchy.com will be a great resource to send
people to for information on what anarchism really is and how it's
connected with the book.

Luckily (although luck is arguable since corporations are making money
off of it), because of the movie coming out, nearly every Borders and
Barnes and Noble in the country now carries the V For Vendetta graphic
novel, so hopefully more people will read it because of the movie buzz.

As for the politics and anarchist strain of V, many people are saying that
insurrectionary anarchism is the closest to what V is practicing and
advocating. Regardless, even if you don't agree with that strain of
anarchism, V For Vendetta is a great opportunity to promote anarchism
and get shit into the mainstream, get people talking.

(A) // (E) // (V)
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:51 PM UTC
"* Engage audience through costumed role playing of
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:07 PM UTC
people would probably just get really pissed off and shoot skittles at you if you started talking shit in the movie theatre. Or get your ass beat.they're there for a movie. might be wrong...?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 06:17 AM UTC
That's my point, unless you were saying that in agreement. They'd either stay far away, get annoyed, or make fun of you if you dressed up and started reinacting scenes from the graphic novel in the middle of the theater. Of course, <i>someone</i> would find it entertaining, but I think the point is to reach as many people as possible.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:58 PM UTC
whaddabout making "free movie passes" and handing them out for the premier.. then when a bunch of folks show up they'll have to let people in or there'll be a riot...
Websites
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 04:07 PM UTC
I fixed the link for the website relating to this project. The following domains should work:

http://www.aforanarchy.com
http://www.aforanarchy.net
http://www.aforanarchy.org
other movies...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:14 PM UTC
Haven't there been other anti-state movies, such as Brazil...? I love that one.

V For Vendetta and its insurrectionary-ness reminds me of the time Emma Goldman and what's-his-name ran around trying to start a revolution in America by bombing shit.
other movies...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:09 PM UTC
There are many anarchist films, it's just that they're very hard get prints of. I'm not sure if it's still happening but the Guild Theater here in Portland had an annual anarchist film festival in the early 2000's. If you type in northwest film center anarchist (no qoutation marks) in google you can look over some the films they've screened in the last few years.
other movies...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 04:01 PM UTC
the guy was berkman and they also did union and womens lib stuff too
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 06:31 PM UTC
From A is for Anarchy website: Some anarcho-communists have adapted
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 10:46 PM UTC
The A for Anarchy website was assembled in about a week, with content coming from every which way and going up at lightning speed. The anti-platformism comment slipped in and was removed as soon as concerns were raised about it.

A specific goal of this project was to put aside sectarian bullshit, to get the anarchist movement out of spending so much time on internecine ideological battles and talking to the 99.99999% of people who have either never heard of anarchism or thing it's what happened in Somalia.

We decided to be inclusive of all forms of anarchism without lending favortism to any one type. Refreshingly, the people in the working group doing this project have yet to even discuss our own ideological leanings with one another. We pretty much know we are all anarchists and that's about it.

While we are quite proud of the site, it was and is a rush job. There is LOTS of room for improvement, and we readily admit that.

Now, we know how for some anarchists sniping is the highest expression of libertarian consciousness (there is a fucking anarcho-snark board on Livejournal), but we have an alternate suggestion:

Help.

Something the site lacks?

Tell us.

Better yet, write what you think should be there. Odds are very good we'll put it up.

Something written badly or an idea explained poorly?

Edit what you don't like and send us your revision.

Got a cool graphic? We'll probably use it.

Have a clue how to make the thing fit better on 800 by 600 res 15 inch screens? Let us know.

That goes for the flyers and sticker and whatever else, too.

Instead of an opportunity to toss stones at people for actually bothering to do something, let's actually embrace the idea of a collective project.

Mail any comments to: aforanarchy@gmail.com

Oh, and if you'd like to be added to the AforAnarchy organizers' email list, send a message to aforanarchy-subscribe@lists.riseup.net.

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 06:33 PM UTC
From A is for Anarchy website: Some anarcho-communists have adapted
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:30 PM UTC
have you ever read a critique of platformism in your life?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 07:38 AM UTC
Actually, yeah. I was the one who compiled the Platformism page on nefac.net, including the many different critiques (Malatesta, Fabbri, Voline, Maria Isidine, etc.), every one of which I've read. Right now I am helping someone from FdCA in Italy to get GP Maximoff's lengthy syndicalist critique online. And yes, I have even read critiques by Bob Black, Lawrence Jarach, et al (a complete waste of time, but whatever).

----MaRK
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:09 PM UTC
This is the most embarrassing thing a NEFAC collective has ever done.

Duke
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:44 PM UTC
yeah, i thought it was a typo or something.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:36 PM UTC
was it a NEFAC collective or just some individual?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 08:28 AM UTC
It certainly didn't go through the regular channels.

But, I don't think the list should be listed as endorsements.

"<b>an ad hoc collective on <u>individual</u> members of groups like</b> New York Metro Anarchist Alliance, NEFAC, Wetlands Activism Collective, Freegan.info, Students for A Democratic Society, Libertad Skool Collective and other groups"

I know that general agitprop is something that NY Metro Anarchist Alliance is interested in.

So, this is just a couple of individuals who want to hand out some lit at movies. O.K. Whatever.

Probably would have been better if they hadn't directly associated their groups with the event in an effort to gain some legitimacy without bringing it through whatever groups process.

I can't imagine SDS being to thrilled about it all. But then again... which way is the wind blowing?
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 09:02 AM UTC
Infoshop.org endorses this campaign.

;-)

See you at the movies,
Chuck
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 11:08 AM UTC
it' no more embarrassing then thinking it's the 1890's and that y'all are going to organize all the factory workers in the Northeast US. haha.... try going to china or guam for that shit. there's no factories left in amerikka.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 11:25 AM UTC
There are actually a shitload of factories in the northeast. Y'know, its still one of the most industrialized regions of the country and all. Hell, I've worked in a few myself. That's kind of beside the point though. When exactly has NEFAC said anything specific about "factory workers" in anything we have ever put out? That's just a weird accusation to make. Whatever.

----MaRK
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 02:35 PM UTC
MaRK,
If you had bothered to read any contemporary "critiques of platformism" you would have learned that we've been talking about "factory workers" this whole time. Pay attention!
MJ
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 06:58 AM UTC
The fact of the matter is the majority of anarchists view platformism as irrelevant (NEFAC? "Whatever...") since it veers dangerously close to authoritarianism in its call for "unity" - the rather sensible critique made by Malatesta of platformism.

Also, to be honest most people see platformist and anarcho-communist groups as being ineffective on the streets (such as the brilliant leading the Black Bloc in the wrong direction at the Inauguration in 2005!) and unable to win any victories in the workplace. So, if you are unable to win victories in the workplace - you can win victories for anarchy by also focusing on people's *time outside work*, i.e. leisure time, by bringing out anarchist ideas in the entertainment they consume in their leisure time. This has worked wonders with anarcho-punk, but needs to be moved to more cultural spheres.

I also think projects like "aforanarchy" are great, because you want people to become anarchists and form affinity groups, they have to in general be aware that this option exists, and movies like V for Vendetta demonstrate this, albeit in fantasy.

So, more and better tactics suited to the time! And let's face it, the "Aforanarchy" website is pretty good - while for along time I believe NEFAC didn't even have a functional website...so let's not those who live in glass houses throw stones at other people's projects. Instead, we need more anarchist activity and projects, everywhere, all the time!


Off topic
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:41 AM UTC

Platformism is off topic in this thread and any further comments about this subject will be deleted.

Off topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 10:07 AM UTC
I don't see why it's off-topic, given that one critique of "A-for-Anarchy" is that the main critique that it's not real "anarchist activity" is coming from self-avowed platformists - when in fact it seems more real and a better potential outreach tool than either some call for theoretical and tactical unity, aka platformism, and that it exemplifies a type of organizing around leisure time that could be successful as it becomes more and more difficult to organize people around work-topic.

Given the "Open letter to Green Anarchy", I might add that I am extremely disappointed in the amount of secretarian non-sense that comes out of both NEFAC and GA, who mostly publish magazines from what I can gather at this point. The most relevant anarchist activity I see going on right now is projects like Common Ground, propaganda like A for Anarchy and the CrimethInc stuff, and informational resources like infoshop.org honestly. So, right on "A for Anarchy" - if people in NEFAC and GA actually engaged in outreach like this, like autonome.org tries to do with class issues, I think we could get somewhere in the USA.
Off topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 04:47 AM UTC
"I might add that I am extremely disappointed in the amount of secretarian non-sense that comes out of both NEFAC and GA..."

I am a member of the Capital Terminus Collective in GA. As with any group, an individual in a moment of frustration may let fly with a sectarian snipe. I know i have done so on occasion. But as for our publication, the newsletter Anarchist Atlanta, we focus on the local work we are doing, or that our members are involved in; to call it sectarian is just ignorant.

prole cat
Off topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:30 AM UTC
I meant "Green Anarchy" not Georgia! I've never met any problems with the few people I've met in Georgia, but then they weren't Terminus City Collective folks.
Off topic
Authored by: Admin on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 08:11 AM UTC
This stuff is off topic, guys.
Off topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 11:40 AM UTC
I stand corrected on both counts.
PC in N GA
Off topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 21 2006 @ 09:22 AM UTC
Uh... the 'Open Letter to GA' was written by someone in the midwest, not NEFAC. There has never been any slagging of Green Anarchy in any of our publications, or any formal critiques of their politics on behalf of our group.

-nefacer
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 09:01 AM UTC
What was on the site regarding this was several days before the official launch of the site and was only a first draft. as you see, the so called "negative" comments about platformism have been deleted.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM UTC

Fer chrissake, MaRK, how can you be so harsh towards the idea of representing the NEFAC on this "Mickey Mouse" project when the goal is to educate a larger public about anarchism? I don't know who's responsible for having added that NEFAC bit in the aforanarchy.org website, but it was a good move. The goal of that project is to show a larger public that anarchism is not about throwing bombs as in that blockbuster movie, but about self-organization into a struggle for a society that's free from the rule of capitalism and the State.

Now is the NEFAC perpetuating he tradition of platformism? Yes, it is. As its collectives are concerned about the theorical unity among its members, that they should agree as well as the form of struggle the collectives will choose. The problem is that sometimes they get so much concerned about it that they sacrifice their solidarity with other anarchist groups for the sake of their own internal theorical and ethical unity, hence the remarks on the sectarianism of the organisation (horizontal authoritarianism, enforced by the most hardcore of their members). I am a member of the NEFAC in Canada, and that's sadly a reality, to some extent. But I see this more as an abstract organisational flaw rather than an issue itself, since collectives of the NEFAC have took "liberties" in the past to do actions which were not fully conform to the principles of the oganisation, and collectives have power on the organisation, and not the opposite, nor certain individuals or instances into it.
IWW mistake on &quot;A for Anarchy&quot;
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:09 PM UTC
The "A for Anarchy" website calls the IWW the "International Workers of the World" under the "Actions" section... [sssssiiiggghhhhhhh]...

For the umpteenth time, it's INDUSTRIAL!

IWW mistake on
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 04:30 AM UTC
xenophobes!
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 04:12 PM UTC
FLYER NOW AVAILABLE FOR COPYING!!

The website at the time of writing this is being updated and will have
the flyer available for download. Until then if you are anxious to make
copies for distribution, here it is. The front and the back are two
separate images, to be made into double-sided copies.

Front: http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/8059/
vendettafront47bb.jpg
Back: http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/674/vendettaback6wa.jpg

As for the platformism thing, the "strains" section was only a first draft
and this issue was recognized 1-2 days ago and was revised, the revision
will be on the site soon.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 05:26 PM UTC
Our most important opportunity in decades? Are you kidding? It's a movie.

I was underwhelmed with the anarchist content of the book, myself. But even if it was a great book with intense political content (I guess some people think it is), even if the movie were true to the book in this regard (who knows; but Moore had nothing to do with the movie and doesn't want to know anything about it)---it's just a Hollywood movie.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 05:57 PM UTC
at the time i am writing this there have been 1,072 views of this article and 54 comments. i just have to say that is pathetic. i cannot remember another article on here that i have seen recieve this much attention...ever. (that's not to say there hasn't been one, i'm sure some angry person will reply to this with a whole list). the point is, regardless of whether or not this movie is any good, it's just a fucking movie, and there are far more importnat topics posted right now that aren't getting any attention because everyone's so caught up in this. is discussing this movie really the most interesting topic on this page to you people? if so, then i tremble for the fate of american anarchy.

(obviously, this is not a reply to the above comment)
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 06:03 PM UTC
It IS just a fucking movie, but the idea is to exploit the situation in order
to make it something more than that. The point is NOT to promote the
movie or even the book but to use this opportunity to spread the word
of anarchism and get people talking about it after they've been
energized by a silly hollywood movie. Who didn't walk out of Fight Club
feeling just a little negative about their work-a-day lives? It's the same
situation.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 07:17 PM UTC

First some empathy: I'm imagining you guys at aforanarchy.com are feeling demoralized reading all these negative reactions to your website and your proposals for outreach. I know how hard it is when you put so much effort into a project with no encouragement from your community, let alone the larger audience.

I'm imagining that you are needing more respect. Well good job with the style of the website and being on top of this before most of us knew about the movie.

But I also feel compelled to offer some suggestions:


"FOOD NOT BOMBS
"Food Not Bombs is one of the fastest growing revolutionary movements and is gaining momentum throughout the world. There are hundreds of autonomous chapters sharing free vegetarian food with hungry people, protesting war and poverty. For over 25 years the movement has worked to end hunger and has supported actions to stop the globalization of the economy, restrictions to the movements of people, end exploitation and the destruction of the earth.""

I can only speak for myself. I did FNB for a year and a half straight, 4 days a week. I'm not against "globalization". Saying that makes me sound like some Buchananite. If by that word we mean interacting with other cultures, showing solidarity for people that are struggling for the same things we are I'm for globalization. However, I am against corporate driven globalization that crushes local autonomy and is a downward spiral in wages, working conditions, environmental protections....




....




"SQUATTING
People that think one's shelter should not have to be paid for, squatters take over abandoned buildings and reclaim them as valuable living quarters"

I squatted for 2 or 3 months. I did it cause I couldn't afford the high rents, and I am willing to make great material sacrifices in my effort to avoid day after day of wage slavery. I also don't like the waste of space and real estate speculators, in the context of affordable housing shortages. I am willing and even happy to pay some money for the maintenance of a home (repairs, utilities, etc), whether it be a regular cooperative house or a squat.




"CRITICAL MASS
A monthly fight to reclaim the streets by bicycle and aways from the poluting machines on wheels"

Please do a spell check on your documents. I know it sounds unimportant but some people will write you off if you don't spell correctly.




"IWW
The International Workers of the World fight to bring fair conditions to the work place. "The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." "

I was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World for several years. Also, the quote you provide is misleading to newcomers. I remember thinking in 1995 that too bad I don't fit into the IWW becausing I'm not an industrial worker. I don't work in a factory. Another thing is that to me, some of the language that the IWW uses, such as the above, is embarrassing. I'm not sure we're going to be seen as relavent to this modern world if we adopt the phrases of our great grandparents.


Most importantly, in the spirit of anarchy, please do not try and represent us. Perhaps you could have a disclaimer on your website that says you speak for your website collective and not for other anarchist individuals and groups.

Anyways, I hope you continue to learn about and apply anarchy to your lives and relations.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 08:12 AM UTC
It's also industrial not international (which would be redundent to say the ver least).

context
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 09:26 PM UTC
Here's the entire quote. Pay attention to the "abolition of the wage system" and eliminationg capitalism parts.

Also, if you had done some research you would realize "Industrial" doesn't necessarily mean factory workers.

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:36 AM UTC
please feel free to send all edits and suggestions to aforanarchy@gmail.com. the
aactions section, along with the rest of the site, is under continual revision. thanks
for the heads up though.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 11:14 PM UTC
Check out this interview with Alan Moore for a bit of information on the man's own political beliefs, his motivation behind the original work and some backstory to the creation of this movie he has asked his name to be taken off of.

Some good quotes:
-"One of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism. There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see."
-"I mean, yes, politically I'm an anarchist."

http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 26 2006 @ 03:20 PM UTC
Just in response to the quote of not a mention of anarchy - there were some corruptions of quotes used by V - the most blatant being a forced version of "it's not my revolution if I can't dance." Hard to tell whether they were throwing us a weird bone as a signal of - we probably can't get away with saying everything we'd like in a bigtime commercial movie but we sympathize to a point, or - just condescending.

So, for whatever reason, there were at least references retained.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 01:14 PM UTC
There's actually a 10:00 pm and a 12:00 midnight showing tonight
March 16th at the Shattuck theater in downtown Berkeley. I just
bought my ticket for the 10:00 show tonight. Hope to see the whole
theater full of anarchists!
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:10 AM UTC
from the official website, this is how the credits read:

"Warner Bros. Pictures presents, in association with Virtual Studios, a Silver
Pictures production in association with Anarchos Productions Inc......"
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:07 PM UTC

thats creepy , but the movie was quite good.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 19 2006 @ 11:59 PM UTC
Umm, yeah. The Wachowski Bros production company IS Anarchos
Entertainment. Whethere or not we adore how anarchism is portrayed in this
movie, it is clear it is at the heart of all of their work. This is very clear in The
Matrix Trilogy (if you deconstruct it a bit) and I think it really comes throught in
parts of V, as well, though not as much as in The Matrix.

I took a whole college class on The Matrix trilogy, relating it to anarchist
thought. It is the core of those movies. Best college credit ever.

V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 21 2006 @ 05:08 AM UTC
hm, i think matrix may be seen as marxist or religious as well...
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 21 2006 @ 09:49 AM UTC

There is a lot of religious symbolism in the Matrix, but it is mostly smoke and
mirrors in my view. I wouldn't say that the critique is Marxist necessarily, but
the anti-capitalist critique is very very strong. In my view it comes from a
strong anti-authoritarian stance, right up until the end where Neo makes a
truce with the machines (the state), saying that Smith (corporate power... no
longer Agent Smith, as he is no longer an agent of the state) is out of
control.

I personally find the truce at the end dissapointing, but on the other hand it
ends exactly like the movie Metropolis, which lends a whole lot of weight to
the anti-capitalist critique found within.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 12:26 PM UTC
The Matrix borrowed HEAVILY from the Invisibles, a comic book series by Grant Morrison. I recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the Matrix and/or V for Vendetta. At the very least, these films and pop-culture references get people thinking about anarchism and militant resistance to the state as much more legitimate. For anyone interested in animal rights, I'd also recommend Animal Man by Grant Morrison, as well. I've found that people see the ELF/ALF in a new light.
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 07 2006 @ 12:06 PM UTC
Yes! the invisibles fucking rules!