Trans-Imperial Anarchism: Cooperatist communalist theory and practice in imperial Japan

This article investigates anarchist theory and practice in 1920s and 1930s imperial Japan. It deliberately focuses on concepts and interventions by a rather unknown group—the Nōson Seinen Sha—to highlight a global consciousness even among those anarchists in imperial Japan who did not become famous for their cosmopolitan adventures. Their trans-imperial anarchism emerged from a modern critique of the present and engagement with cooperatist communalist ideas and experiences in Asia, Russia, and Western Europe. Anarchists theorized and implemented new forms of living that challenged the forces of capitalism, imperialism, and increasing militarism. In doing so, they simultaneously positioned themselves against established conservative and fascist agrarianism as well as Marxist dogmatism in the socialist movement. Despite their repression by the imperial state, they offered a radical, universalist, yet pragmatic way of being in autarkic farming village communes that corresponded with similar ideas and movements worldwide.

“I Do not Believe in Anarchy.” To the Question of the Ideological Foundations of Egor Letov’s Works

The name of Egor Letov (1964–2008), one of the most famous Russian punks today, has a stable association with anarchism in the mass consciousness, with a protest against any form of power. Some of Letov’s texts and phrases (for example, “Kill the state in yourself!”) have acquired the character of precedent – they are identified and function as anarchist texts without necessarily referring to the original source. At the same time, there are elements in Letov’s works that are difficult to reconcile with an anarchist worldview, and in general, Letov’s anarchism is not obvious. For example, the theme of death, which is one of the key themes in Letov’s works, is hardly associated with anarchism, which takes the side of life. The main purpose of the article is to clarify Letov’s attitude to anarchism, to show the role and place of the anarchist worldview in his works. The author concludes that Letov’s works is either not anarchist enough (a turn towards nationalist views) or, on the contrary, too anarchist (a form of total protest). This situation is conditioned by structural peculiarities of anarchist theory. Classical anarchism has a Manichaean structure (S. Newman), as subject and power in it are clearly separated. Letov’s creativity is not anarchist in this Manichaean sense, which requires unambiguity and clarity of its elements. Despite the evasion of Manichaean binaryism, Letov’s texts are able to keep the link with anarchism. Letov’s anarchism has broader grounds and expresses a total protest against reality, which condenses freedom into a conventional communication framework, makes it predictable, and protects it from waste.

“Listen, Marxist!”: On the Forgotten Past of Self-Management and the Contemporary Orgasms of History

In this article, we argue that self-management should not be understood only as an economic project, but rather as a political form based on the transformation of the core principles of modern capitalist societies. We start from the supposition that self-management does not imply an economic, but primarily a political recomposition of society, which is why it is necessary to draw attention to the economic reductionism in the discussions on self-management. The purpose of this article is three-fold: first, we recover the original meaning of self-management, its forgotten, anarchist (pre)history, and elaborate on the anarchist theory of organisation that has dynamised the idea/practice of self-management throughout history. Second, we analyse Yugoslav self-management through the categories and concepts of Praxis philosophy, which leads us to the conclusion that the Yugoslav model of self-management was above all a non-political form that remained in the framework of liberal democratic theory. Finally, we explore the global mass assembly movement Occupy, building on the recent academic attention devoted to the notion of non-state spaces. We analyse the encampments and occupied squares as self-managed exilic spaces in which protesters (in)voluntarily escaped from both state regulation and capitalist accumulation.

The Egalitarian Sublime

The book answers the question: Can the sublime be egalitarian? It gives critical studies of the main historical theories of the sublime, from Longinus, Burke, Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, as well as recent secondary literature. There are also reactions to contemporary positions, from Žižek, Lyotard, Kristeva and Adorno. It is argued that the sublime has always had consequences counter to equality. In response to this, the book defends an anarchist theory of the sublime, where anarchism is part of a radical commitment to democracy and multiplicity. The book develops a new method, inspired by microhistory and by the process philosophy of signs, from my earlier book A Process Philosophy of Signs. Diagrams of the effects of definitions of the sublime are central to this method. The definition of egalitarian is made in relation to Balibar and to Rancière. This definition leads to a rejection of the technological and environmental sublimes on the basis of their failure to be egalitarian.

Smashing the state gently: Radical realism and realist anarchism

The revival of realism in political theory has included efforts to challenge realism’s conservative reputation and argue that radical forms are possible. Nonetheless these efforts have been criticised as insufficient to overcome realism’s inherent conservatism. This article argues that radical forms of realism can be better appreciated by considering the application of the realist perspective within an existing radical ideology: anarchism. This may seem an unusual choice, considering anarchism’s standard representation as naïvely idealistic and paradigmatically non-realist. However, attention to the breadth of diversity in anarchist theory reveals a collection of positions that together represent a ‘realist anarchism’ which not only challenges anarchism’s reputation as uniformly committed to unrealistic and idealistic utopianism but also demonstrates the existence of genuinely radical forms of realism.

Micropolitics and Social Change: Deleuze and Guattari for Anarchist Theory and Practice

Paul Raekstad turns to Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of the molar and molecular. He argues that while these differ in nature or scale, this does not necessarily mean they differ in size or extension. Based on this argument, Raekstad examines and pinpoints a problem with vanguardist approaches to revolution which, he shows, is not a problem of organisation or unification as such, but of the kinds of organisation and unification that are required to go beyond capitalism and the State.

Anarchy and Qualitative Methods

What is anarchist theory and practice? What does it mean when anarchists engage with qualitative research? Anarchism has a long-standing history within radical political action that has been enacted at particular historical times and spaces. The Spanish Civil War, Paris 1968, and the so-called Battle of Seattle in 1999 saw the potential of anarchism as both a mode of critique and way(s) in which to think about direct political action. However, little has been done within the critical qualitative research project to engage with the ideas and critiques that anarchism offers researchers to think about and inform their own work. Resisting hierarchies and their arrangements, challenging domination and relationships of power, rethinking praxis and direct action in qualitative research, and envisioning a utopian social and political imagination have been just a few of the political and epistemological projects that anarchists have undertaken that have direct implications for qualitative researchers. In thinking about future potentials, it has become imperative that critical qualitative researchers engage with anarchist theory and its critiques to better inform its own assumptions when thinking about the roles that qualitative research plays in resisting and altering oppressive social, political, and economic conditions.