anarchism debate

Open and hybrid thoughts
by Andrea Staid

It can not and should not have only one way to see the anarchist idea. Starting from this assumption will not open a debate on anarchism, but just the anarchists.

This small space inside the magazine was founded with the intention of giving rise to a debate between the different plural forms, practices and theories of libertarian and anarchist thought. Awareness is one that can not and should not have only one way to see the anarchist idea and that by comparing the theoretical and practical discussion on these pages can also better understand the contemporary world and especially the possibility of libertarian thought, namely understand how to navigate in the ocean that is the cultural nature of mankind.
Starting from the very concept that the anarchist idea is a "product", we try to define the concept of culture.

"Man is an animal biologically deficient. Entrusted to his biological capacities alone, would know hardly survive. His own physical survival apparently requires intervention from the beginning of culture. "[Remotti 1996]

By communicating with each other, humans "invent" a culture in the sense that this appears to be the result of the renegotiation of individuals who always negotiate certain meanings. Then "the" culture as a product of communication between human beings, something that is continually subjected to the processes of contamination by other cultures.
For Arjun Appadurai (1992, 1996) the concept of culture implies the idea of difference, but where the differences are no longer conceptualized as a time in taxonomic form, but given the increasing globalization process, in terms of interaction and inter-subjective and intercultural refraction.
Way of interpreting the concept of culture also suggests that the anarchist idea (that is a cultural product as well as political) can not be defined something once and for all, and even become a real entity that develops on the basis of own “laws”, but something that arises from an agreement between communicating parties, each of which carries its own specificity. You can not have the pretension to be able to define once and for all what the "laws" that govern its evolution.
So just giving a sense of anarchy dynamic communication, negotiation, creative, conflicted with itself, that this idea can still live and act to change the society’s domain and authority. The subject in this vision of anarchism becomes crucial because in the end the difference is between those who decide to rebel, sabotage the ruling system and those who decide to accept it.
It is therefore to produce a "political entity" that is radically resistant to the kind of society in which we live, its values, relations of exploitation and domination that constitute it, and is therefore also in, with and for the subject that is built anarchy. I start from the belief that it is useless to fight for a world freed when they are not primarily individuals who strive for this to change their lives, their relationships, daily contact with people. Our practice in the fight, should not only be of practical demands, but also construction, made of "know how" differently dominant hegemony. It is within the struggle and in the course of their performance that we "desoggettivizziamo, "and that we put into practice another way of life, other relationships, to name but a few small example is through self-organization and its many practical trying to undermine the imaginary space of the domain to ensure that everyone can contribute through direct action and the refusal of the proxy to reclaim their lives by releasing physical and mental spaces. O through the self we implement a method that makes us rediscover the independence to create what we need to live, makes us disconnect from the current production system, reducing dependence and increasing the pleasure of using what is produced. Through a different way of life we seek to overturn the rules and taxes reformulate especially from below, already start to live in a society partially released. Is essential to try to act consistently to combat domain, you must work long and deep to discredit the authority, to be able to break the asymmetries in the functional relationships from the bottom trying to unleash a beginning, an outline of the libertarian society, whether in the form practices of resistance to attack.
At this point a question arises what has become of the future? Where is the sun of the future, it is clear that the struggle is necessary to give a projection that extends beyond the present, but,

(...) the project, the end to be attained need not be formulated in terms of a generalized social conflict Nor to build an ideal society. This projection into the future may consist, for example, in the objective to increase and diversify progressively outbreaks of resistance, to disseminate it to the full in the social fabric. Or to give another example, this projection may consist out of this every time devising stratagems to take out more effective measures of power. (Ibanez, 2010).

As I wrote in the previous issue of A anarchism can not be repeated the same all over the world, should not be considered universal. It is important that anarchism is linked to the context of its production, capable of producing a clear and decisive message, but never say this in absolute terms, a message that will be built gradually, that changes in practice in everyday, and between the people.
It is no longer a metter to organize to achieve widespread insurrection, but it is changing their lives and those of others now, here and now, within the means of combating that are developed collectively and through the daily actions of new capacity to overturn the dominant imaginary.
It's about developing practices that, while transforming on a revolutionary parts of reality, change ourselves, our lives and change our relations with others. I realize that there is not much new about this way of reading and that is why anarchism is secondary or post to put the new code, the same Colin Ward, tells us of a creative and constructive anarchism that does not give us a vision of the future of the world to come, but rather a way of life and organizations within the everyday mind, with the idea of expanding like wildfire and contaminate their values gradually wider social sectors.
Being a revolutionary is to be able to organize the facts that contradict the dominant values, to create other ways of life firmly on the edge of the ways of life caused by capitalism,

is to act collectively to stop today, the power in its many manifestations. If all this is crystallized, it widens and check tomorrow, the whole system, the better, of course, but it will be a side effect, not the end sought in the first instance. The end sought in the first instance lies in the fact of resistance proliferation and the multiplication of spaces removed from power, where you can create a reality tending toward anarchy and live the present as much as possible according to the anarchist values (Ibanez, 2010).

I hope that this debate could be one of the many areas that we are able to steal the power, to generate a debate on an idea, a lot of practice to live on anarchism. Here and now.

To respond, write to:
arivista@tin.it
andreastaid@gmail.com