Anarchy is the name we have given to the arrow aimed at

the heart of every dinosaur. lt is not a religion and it is not

merely an ideology or brand of politics; it is a living,
evolving ecology of resistance. It is simply a promise we
have made to ourselves. In the following pages you will
find one collective's attempt at describing folk approaches
to anarchy today. There are undoubtedly many more
versions, but they are connected by a web of actions: we
will fight, we will create, we will love, and we will evolve.
Anarchy isn't somewhere else, some other time: it's
the most meaningful path between ourselves and
freedom.

from the occupied territory currently known as grand rapids, mi // http://sproutac.org

Mass, the Left,

and other
Walking Fossils

Selections from Anarchy in the Age of

Dinosaurs by The Curious George Brigade

You can't fight alienation with alienated means.

What cause will we take up today? How about a week from now? How can
we get __________ involved? What groups will work with us? If only people
would join us... Want to get involved in our struggling project, it will only take
______ hours per week? What will the community think?
The stale ritual of marching in empty streets, holding picket signs on a
corner, meetings that never seem to end, the endless presentation of
facts and figures, the appeals to reason and conscience, the empty
pleas for solidarity, the market of causes, the campaigns, the sacrifice, the
feelings of duty and compulsion, etc. These are characteristics of the left.
Presented as part of an ongoing narrative in which things are always getting
betterand we're always making progressthe left presents a neverending series of empty forms and passionless gestures. In its worst
manifestation it offers simply a change in management (i.e. the party
bosses instead of capitalist ones), while all varietiesincluding leftist
anarchismtake our current way of life as a given and believe that we can
(some how) manage a mass technological society democratically.
Most of have (unfortunately) experience with the left, and the memories
hurt. For each of us that have sworn off those forms and have rejected the
dinosaurs of the left, there is sadly new prey every day. The Left inserts itself
into any social struggle, constantly trying to bring people into the fold of
traditional leftist activism. They were waiting in the wings in Occupy, in the
student occupations of 2009, the anti-globalization movement, and more
(even here in our home in little ole grand rapids). Wherever there is energy,
they intervenenot to increase the intensity of the strugglebut to blunt it
with calls for moderation, more education, more talk, and more boring
meetings. No matter how many times their ideologies and tactics fail, they
seem to come lumbering back.
When will it end?
This zine is made up of selections from the book Anarchy in the Age of
Dinosaurs. It was written by the Curious George Brigade back in the early to
mid-2000's at the tail end of what anarchists often refer to as the antiglobalization era. Some of it no doubt is a little dated, but for the most part
it offers a good starting point for an anti-leftist critique: it rejects the idea of
the mass, the notion of duty, single-issue campaigns, compromise,
coalitions, permanence, false unity, etc. In their place, they offer a vision of
anarchy based on affinity, decentralization, informal networks, and
autonomy.
Note: We'd be remiss if we didn't mention that we certainly can't endorse
everything the Curious George Brigade has written. They once wrote a
laughable zine called Liberate Not Exterminate that offered an anarchist
defense of cities (as if something that is everywhere needs a defense). They
even claimed faith in future sustainable technologies, yikes!

Only in groups where they feel valued, trusted, and secure will
people be willing to take the time to present unpopular views and
suggestions that will determine the outcome of a project.
Responsibility ought to be based on friendship and autonomy, not
on a slavish following of leaders, platforms, or abstract dogmas.
Each person in an affinity group must account for their actions,
words, and deeds to their most trusted comrades. We reject the
blame game and accusations so common in efficient groups. With
each person accepting full responsibility for their actions, no one
can have any more of the blame than any one else. Lets all be
accountable to ourselves, so we can grow and learn from our
mistakes and be buoyed by our successes. It takes time to
understand people, to develop friendships and trust. It is naive to
think that by proclaiming a platform or points of unity we can
develop trust and solidarity with strangers. Politics should not be
tied to some abstract time line divined by leaders or musty books
but to our own instincts and desires! Demand the time to think,
form meaningful relationships, and enjoy the journey. For any
chance at success, we must love each other more than our enemy
hates us. To these ends, our inefficiency is our weapon.

Media Centers. Eventually, the entire dichotomy breaks down as

media skills are learned and shared. Its actually more impressive
to see thousands of diverse voices each expressing a unique
perspective on their current situation than the same massproduced issue-of-the-week signs that are given away by organizers
at every large march.
Anarchists seek not only to increase their audiences but also to
increase the diversity of mediums and people who have the ability
to reach audiences. By creating a culture of propagandists skilled
in getting their messages across, our communication becomes
simultaneously more honest and more complex. The tricks used by
capitalist advertisements to fool us into buying their newest
product can be transformed into weapons in our hands for
dismantling this system. A sexist billboard selling Coors is changed
into a demand for veganism, perplexing passing motorists. Books of
propaganda become more meaningful when their pages get ripped
out, photocopied, stolen, reinterpreted, edited, and passed on.

TACTICAL INEFFICIENCY
You are a bunch of anti-organizationalists, and we are fighting to
win is a recent critique on those who share some of our tactics in
the activist world. Activists who pursue efficiency would have us
believe that anarchist principles may be fine for an ideal world or
even after the comfortably far off Revolution, but for now they are
unpractical, selfish, and dangerous. These activists march smugly
under the faded banners of political discipline, efficiency, and
sensibility. What is so ironic is that these marching groups are
often the least effective groups on the streets, at least as far as
social and political change is concerned. Thirty-odd years of
marching around with signs in America has made little progress
against the onslaught of capitalist and state power. Maybe its time
to try something different? It certainly wont be easy. Our enemies
are unified enough to throw major obstacles in our way. They have
armies, media, money, resources, jails, religions, and countless
other tools at their disposal to stop any revolutionary change that
risks upsetting their current positions of power. Our inefficient
models are the most meaningful way of ensuring that we maximize
our opportunities. Consensus allows us to use all the ideas of all
participants. It is worth the time to make sure our projects have the
greatest chance of success by listening to everyones opinion and
taking them seriously. We will need all of our skills, resources and
creativity to resist them, remake our own lives and society.

INSTEAD OF A MANIFESTO
We live in an age of dinosaurs. All around us enormous social,
economic, and political behemoths lumber through destroyed
environments, casting life-threatening shadows over the entire
planet. There is a titanic struggle taking place in our communities
as Capitalist-Rex and State-asaurus struggle to fill their bellies with
more resources and power while fending off the claws of competing
species such as the newly savage Pterror-dactyls. The battle
between these giants is terrible and rages on, but it cannot last.
Evolution is against these doomed tyrants. Already their sun is
dimming and the bright eyes of others gleam in the darkness,
demanding something else.
Not all of these eyes are much different from the struggling reptilian
overlords that currently dominate the globe. They have inspired
smaller dinosaurs waiting their turn for dominion. These smaller
ones are the fossilized ideologies of the Left. Despite alluring
promises, they offer only a cuddlier version of the current system,
and in the end are no more liberating than the larger masters, such
as the "socialist" governments of Western Europe. Their talons may
be smaller and their teeth not as sharp, but their appetite and
methods are the same as their larger kin. They long for mass: the
eternal dream of the child to be massive. They believe if they can
reach enough mass, through parties, organizations, and
movements, then they can challenge the master dinosaurs and tear
power away from them.
In the cool shadows of the night, in the treetops of forgotten forests,
and in the streets of devastated cities there are still other eyes.
Quick eyes and slender bodies fed on hope, eyes that gleam with
the possibility of independence. These small creatures live in the
periphery in the footsteps and shadows of dinosaurs. Their ears do
not respond to the call of the smaller dinosaurs who want to
consume them and create "one big dinosaur" to usurp all others.
These small warm-blooded creatures are many and varied, living on
the discarded abundance of the world that the dinosaurs, in their
arrogance, trample over. They scheme together in the shadows and
dance while the exhausted giants sleep. They build and create, find
new ways to live and rediscover forgotten ones, confident that the
tyranny will end.
We know that this draconian reign will not last forever. Even the
dinosaurs know their age must end: the meteor will surely hit.
Whether by the work of the curious, warm-blooded ones or by some

unknown catastrophe, the bad days of gargantuan, reptilian

authority will end. The drab uniform of armored scales will be
replaced with a costume of feathers, fun and supple skin of a
million hues.

A DREAM OF MASS
The fatal flaw of dinosaur thought is an insatiable desire for mass.
The roots of this hysterical urge can be traced back to the smokechoked nights of the l9th century, a long night we have not yet left.
However the exact origins of this insistence on becoming a mass do
not interest us; instead, we want to understand how this dinosaur
thought makes its way into our present cultures of resistance, and
what we can create to replace it.
The desire for mass dictates nearly everything a dinosaur does.
This insatiable lust governs not only its decisions, but also its very
organization. Mass organizations, even in the presentation of
themselves to others (whether potential allies or the media) engage
in a primitive chest puffing to feign that they are more massive
than they actually are. Just as the early dinosaurs spent nearly
every moment of their waking lives in search of food, the dinosaurs
of the Left expend the majority of their resources and time chasing
the chimera of mass: more bodies at the protest, more signatories,
and more recruits.
The continued attraction of mass is no doubt a vestigial dream from
the days of past revolutions. Every lonely soul selling a radical
paper under the giant shadows of gleaming capitalist billboards
and under the gaze of a well-armed cop secretly daydreams of the
masses storming the Bastille, the crowds raiding the Winter Palace,
or the throngs marching into Havana. In these fantasies, an
insignificant individual becomes magically transformed into a
tsunami of historical force. The sacrifice of her individuality seems
to be a token price for the chance to be part of something bigger
than the forces of oppression. This dream is nurtured by the
majority of the Left, including many anarchists: the metamorphosis
of one small, fragile mammal into a giant, unstoppable dinosaur.
The dream of mass is kept alive by the traditional iconography of
the Left; drawings of large undifferentiated crowds, bigger-than-life
workers representing the growing power of the proletariat, and
aerial photographs of legions of protestors filling the streets. These
images are often appealing, romantic, and empowering: in short,
good propaganda. However, no matter how appealing, we should

perhaps those musicians might need the strikers to help defend

their squat next week!
This is in stark contrast to many organizations that collect monthly
dues to hide away in war-chests waiting for the right time to
spend it. Inefficient organizations allow each individual to express
themselves to the fullest of their abilities in cooperation with
others, unlike large groups where most people are just another face
in the crowd. Our networks do not need to have officers, a
manifesto, or necessarily even a name. Can such networks pose a
significant alternative to the established political system? Just a
few years ago the militarys pet think-tank RAND Corp. wrote this
about the unpermitted, unscripted elements of the 1999 anti-WTO
protests in Seattle:
Anarchists, using extremely good modern communications,
including live internet feeds, were able to execute simultaneous
actions by means of pulsing and swarming tactics coordinated by
networked and leaderless affinity groups. It became an example of
the challenges that hierarchical organizations face when
confronting networked adversaries with faster reaction cycles. This
loosely organized coalition, embracing network organization, and
tactics, frustrated police efforts to gain the situational awareness
needed to combat the seemingly chaotic Seattle disturbances.
Were definitely doing something right!

INEFFICIENT PROPAGANDA
The demand for quality experiences is an important propaganda
tool in a society that produces meaningless quantity: a billion
television channels with nothing on. One of the challenges we face
is to transform a society of passive consumers into active and
creative participants in their own futures, by any means necessary.
Opening the flows of communication is key to creating anarchy.
Graffiti, zines, pirate radio, subvertisements, billboard defacements,
and web-sites may not reach the large audiences of mass media but
their impact is often more lasting on both the producers and the
audience. As more people take control of the message, more
voices are heard. This decentralization of message and medium
creates a culture of propagandists ruthlessly pirating and creating
information to form their own messages. The difference between
consumer and producer shrinks when everyone can have their
voice heard. This is the central concept behind the Independent

is usually at the cost of genuine participation and autonomy. At its

very core, consensus demands participation and input from the
entire community. In an environment of mutual trust, consensus is
one of the few decision-making models that truly rejects authority
while protecting the autonomy of individuals and small groups.
When consensus works, everyone can participate and all desires
are taken into account. And while there is no magic formula for
creating a good meeting or social interaction, we should never
sacrifice our ideals and politics for false unity. We talk of
maintaining biodiversity and ethnic diversity, but what about
political and tactical diversity? When the voice of every minority,
faction, or individual is sacrificed in the name of efficiency, the
horizon of our politics shrinks. When people are sidelined, we all
lose out. Never confuse efficiency with effectiveness.

INEFFICIENT ORGANIZATION
Affinity groups (AGs) tend to be less efficient than armies,
hierarchical organizations, and other mass-based organizational
models. By their very structure, AGs take every individuals opinion
seriously. This is a much less efficient principle of organization
than a party whose leaders make decisions unilaterally. What AGs
lack in size, efficiency, and mobilization of resources, they more
than make up for in participation, genuine experiences, and
solidarity. The dinosaurs on the
Left tell us that we must get armies, seize government power, and
most of all, be state-like in order to win. Why should we let the
State set the terms of our resistance anyway? Anarchists can come
up with more flexible strategies. Our networks gladly lack a precise
platform of principles and unceasing meetings. Instead, we have
irregular gatherings, rendezvous for specific projects, multiple
skills, solid friendships, and limitless ambitions unconstrained by
organizational hierarchies. Through these networks of trust, people
can feel comfortable with the most outrageous of actions while
receiving the care and warmth needed to carry on. They may not be
ageless and permanent, but these models rarely outlive their
usefulness, unlike formal parties and other efficient organizations
which lumber on into irrelevancy.
We dont need to preplan every contingency in an attempt to be
super humanly efficient. Anarchists take care of each other and our
friends. A group of bands get together to hold a benefit show for a
local group of strikers and move on after the money is given to
those in need. These relationships can be mutually beneficial,

not trick ourselves into thinking that they are real. These images
are no more real, or desirable, than the slick advertisements offered
to us by the cynical capitalist system.
Traditionally anarchists have been critical of the homogeneity that
comes with any mass (mass production, mass media, mass
destruction) yet many of us seem powerless to resist the image of
the sea of people flooding the streets singing "Solidarity Forever!"
Terms like "Mass Mobilizations," "The Working Class," and "The
Mass Movement" still dominate our propaganda. Dreams of
usurpation and revolution have been imprinted on our vision from
past struggles: we have bought a postcard from other times and
want to experience it ourselves. If immediate, massive worldwide
change is our only yardstick, the efforts of a small collective or
affinity group will always appear doomed to fail.
Consumer society fills our heads with slogans such as "bigger is
better," and "quantity over quality" and "strength in numbers." It
should come as no surprise that the dream of a bigger and better
mass movement is so prevalent among radicals of all stripes. We
should not forget how much creativity, vitality, and innovation has
come from those who resist being assimilated. Many times it is the
tiny group that scorns the mainstream that makes the most
fantastic discoveries. Whether indigenous peasants in Chiapas or a
gawky kid in high school, these are the folks that refuse to be
another face in the crowd.
The desire to achieve mass leads to many dysfunctional behaviors
and decisions. Perhaps the most insidious is the urge to water
down our politics in order to gain popular support. This all-toocommon tendency leads to bland, homogenous campaigns that are
the political equivalents of the professionally printed signs we see at
so many protests and rallies, monotonously repeating the dogma of
the organizers' message. Despite the lip service paid to local
struggles and campaigns, these are only useful to a dinosaur if they
can be tied into (consumed by) the mass. The diversity of tactics
and messages that come easily with heterogeneous groups must be
smoothed out and compromised to focus an easily digested slogan,
or goal. In this nightmare, our message and actions simply become
means to increase registration rolls, to fill protest pens, or add
signatories on calls to actions: all measures of mass.
We pay for these numbers with stifled creativity and compromised
goals. Ideas that would repel the media or expand a simple message
beyond a slogan ("No Blood For Oil" or "Not My President") are
avoided because they might provoke discussions and rifts of

opinion, and thus reduce mass. The healthy internal debates,

disagreements, and regional variations must be downplayed. Yet
these are the very differences that make our resistance so fluid and
flexible, leading to the brashest innovations.
In these sadly predictable situations, the sound-bite is king. At all
times, the eyes remain on the prize: size. The desires for mass and
homogeneity (which go hand in hand) limit non-conformist and
radical initiatives by those who want to try something different. A
common complaint about creative or militant actions is that they
will not play well in the media, that they will take away from our
message or that they will perhaps alienate some constituency or
another. Calls for conformity usually in the form of cynical chestbeating for "unity" are powerfully effective tools for censoring
passionate resistance from those not beholden to mass politics.
What is missing in our street demonstrations and in our
communities is not unity but genuine solidarity.
In securing their own goals, dinosaurs use fear as a tool. They
utilize the very real dangers we face in our daily lives in our
communities of resistance. Mass organizations promise us security
and strength in numbers. If you are willing to have your ideas, your
issues and your initiatives consumed by the dinosaur, you will be
protected in its ample belly. No doubt, many people are willing to
temporarily subsume their messages and particular forms of
resistance for safety. However the promise of safety whether backed
by protest permits or a huge list of supporters, are empty. The
State has a long history of immobilizing mass movements: a
dinosaurs sup- posed strength lies in its lumbering size. All the
State needs to do is whittle away at any particular movement
through arrests, co-optation, tiny concessions, intimidation, and
"seats at the table."
As the movement is divided into groups that can be co-opted and
minority of radicals, its strength dissipates, and morale plummets.
This has been proven again and again to be an effective and timehonored technique of the State to dispatch of any movement for
social and political change.
There are other dreams, dreams of anarchy, that are not haunted
by lumbering proto-dinosaurs. These are not dreams of "The
Revolution" but of hundreds of revolutions. These include local and
international forms of resistance that manage to be both inventive
and militant. The monoculture of One Big Movement searching for
The Revolution ignores the lived experiences of ordinary folks.
Anarchists in North America are creating something else.

professional facilitators to run our meetings? In contrast to skill

sharing, professionalized relationships leave all parties cold and
lacking, whether the transaction involves having your car repaired
or receiving vital health care. Both the consumer and specialist are
cheating themselves of the opportunity to learn new skills and
befriend new people. The specialist becomes trapped in doing what
she is good at or specialized in, and rarely what she actually wants
to do. Equally trapped, the consumer loses her own autonomy
when relationships are reduced to efficient monetary exchanges.
This alienated consumer works against her own interests; she
knows little about who she is bankrolling. She may be saving her
money in a bank that is lending it to the real-estate gentrifiers that
are destroying her local neighborhood and raising her rent. Often
we repeat these capitalistic interactions in our communities of
resistance, giving our time and money to organizations we know
almost nothing about. A rogue member of the Curious George
Brigade was recently hit up for a donation by a volunteer of the
giant anti-war coalition who was toting around a giant garbage bag,
in the streets, during the actual demonstration! When asked where
that big bag of money would actually wind up, the volunteer
shrugged her shoulders and candidly answered, You know, to be
honest, I dont know. I just follow directions. Needless to say, we
wound up donating our money to the bail fund instead. In life and
activism, we should know who we are working with; otherwise
voluntary association is just a slogan. All of this takes time.
Inefficiency rots away the ideological foundations of the modern
capitalist State. Workers know that politically motivated inefficiency
(e.g. work-slowdowns) is an important tool to gain power in the
workplace. Imagine extending the work-slowdown to the political
process and to every facet of society. Political inefficiency can be an
important tool for checking authoritarian tendencies in larger
groups. For example, at an impersonal, businesslike meeting, you
can reject a predetermined plan of action by organizers and
demand time and a venue to discuss real alternatives. Too many
times activists have been strong-armed into poorly made, myopic
plans created by tiny groups and self-appointed leaders. It is
necessary to reject prepackaged politics the same way we reject
prepackaged food in favor of a home cooked meal made with
friends.

POLITICAL INEFFICIENCY
Consensus may take more time than voting, but then voting is not
as time-efficient as totalitarianism. What little is gained in efficiency

internalize and repeat this criticism. Some have attempted to gain

efficiency with such means as officers, federations, and voting. All
of this is done to scare away the hobgoblin of inefficiency that has
dogged anarchism for so long.

Sometimes without even consciously knowing it, we are shedding

the baggy skin of the dinosaur Left and venturing out to create wild
and unpredictable resistances: a multitude of struggles, all of them
meaningful, all of them interconnected.

Dont believe the hype.

The dreams of anarchists are the nightmares of the small-time

dinosaurs: whether they take the form of Washington politicos,
well-paid union officials, or party bureaucrats. Within a diverse
swarm of individuals and small groups, resistance can be anywhere
and anytime, everywhere, and all the time. In the few short years
since the late nineties, the mixture of the anti-globalization
convergences, local activism and campaigns, travelers, techies, and
solidarity with international resistances has created something new
in North America. We are replacing the Mass Movement with a
swarm of movements where there's no need to stifle our passions,
hide our creativity, or subdue our militancy. For the impatient, it
will appear that we are too few and gaining only small victories. Yet
once we drop pretensions to mass supremacy we can learn that
smallness is not only beautiful, but also powerful.

Instead, rejoice in inefficiency and rightfully reject the idol-worship

of the Ford Factory of political change. Efficiency is the hallmark of
modern life in North America: from fast food drive-ins to wellregulated police states. Efficiency is the coin of the realm for
soulless structures like the International Monetary Fund and the
earth destroying agribusiness industry. The desire to do more in
less time is not a neutral force in our culture; it is the handmaiden
of miserable experts, specialists, and leaders.
Not everyone has rushed to become efficient. Something else exists
on the periphery: an inefficient utopia, a culture of consensus,
collectives, and do-it-yourself ethics. A place where time is not
bought, sold, or leased, and no clock is the final arbiter of our
worth. For many people in North America, the problem is not just
poverty but lack of time to do the things that are actually
meaningful. This is not a symptom of personal failures but the
consequence of a time-obsessed society. Today, desire for efficiency
springs from the scarcity model which is the foundation of
capitalism. Time is seen as a limited resource when we get caught
up in meaningless jobs, mass-produced entertainment, and the
common complaint of activists tedious meetings. So lets make the
most of our time! In our politics and projects, anarchists have
rightly sought to find meaning in the journey, not merely in the
intended destinations. Inefficiency allows us the opportunity to
seek out our affinities and engage in meaningful work without the
sands of time burying our ideals. Despite the advice of high school
counselors and computer graded exams, it takes time to know what
you really want to do with your life.
In the efficient dystopia that is North America, Time is Money. Yet
there is never enough time or money for what we really need. Our
communities of resistance have rightly placed a great deal of
emphasis on exchanging skills and knowledge through do-ityourself (DIY) workshops, trainings, rendezvous and convergences.
As opposed to the corporate or academic models, DIY skill sharing
requires time-consuming encounters that create genuine
relationships based on friendship and mutual trust. In the pursuit
of efficiency, meaningful relationships like these are replaced by
professionalization and reliance on specialists. Do we really need

DELUSIONS OF CONTROL
When faced with the unbridled wildness of reality dinosaurs fall
into fevered delusions of grandeur: In fits of madness, they recreate
the world in their own overblown image, bulldozing the wild and
replacing it with a wasteland that reflects their own emptiness.
Where there was once the incredibly complex diversity of nature,
there is now the dead simplicity of asphalt and concrete.
These habits of control are deeply ingrained not only in dinosaurs,
but also in everyone they come into contact with, including the
most self-styled of revolutionaries. These delusions of control affect
how we form relationships with other people, articulate our own
thoughts, and live our own lives. If we look at American society we
cannot ignore the rates of domestic violence, the brutal selfinterest, and institutionalized homophobia, sexism, and racism.
Just as dinosaurs destroy physical ecosystems, they replace their
social relationships with alliances and partnerships based on
efficiency control, growth, and the pursuit of profit. Anarchists have
been guilty of this too. What was once a community becomes a
movement; friends are replaced with mere allies. Dreams become
ideology and revolution becomes work. Revolutionaries desperately
attempt to control the world around thema futile effort, since it is
the twin-headed dinosaur of the State-asaurus and Multinational
Business-saur that currently runs the world. Retreating from the

present, radicals too often live their lives as ghosts in some

revolutionary past or future. It's no surprise that revolutionaries
who actually believe their own rhetoric become burnt out on worse,
armchair theorists. It's easier to ponder the future than it is to do
something about the present.
Just as it is easier to theorize about the world than to interact with
the world, its much easier to theorize about how The Revolution
will happen than to make a revolution actually happen, Predictions
and postulates about which group is the most revolutionary are
even more ridiculous. The theorists, being consummate experts,
reserve for themselves the right to appoint the ones who will
actually create revolution in the comfortably far-off future. Who are
they going to choose, this time around? The workers? The
proletariat? Youth? People of color? People in the Third World?
Anyone except themselves.
No one knows what The Revolution is going to look like, least of all
the doddering, armchair prognosticators, who ignore their own
surroundings to contemplate the perfection of the dialectic. People
who stand with their feet on the ground instinctively sense that no
book of revolutionary theory can capture every detail of the future.
Much of what is called "revolutionary" is irrelevant to most ordinary
folks. The voices of actual communities are alive in a way no theory
could ever be even if, for now, it takes the form of tiny acts of
resistance. Who doesnt cheat on taxes, avoid cops, or skip class?
These acts themselves may not be revolutionary, but they begin to
unravel the control from above. Anarchist approaches must be
relevant to everyday experiences and flexible enough to address
struggles in different situations and contexts. If we can achieve
this, then we may thrive in the world after the dinosaurs. We might
even be fortunate enough to be in one of the communities that have
a hand in toppling them.

A G A I N S T

E X P E R T S

A N D

EFFICIENCY
Anarchists are creating a culture that allows more and more people
to break free from the reign of the dinosaurs. At present, our
agitation and propaganda are often just sparks to inflame the
heart, not actual flames of revolution. This has provoked both
impatience and cynicism in some, but anarchists should be
confident. We are creating a revolution in which we don't just
control the means of production, but one where we actually control

RADICAL

DECENTRALIZATION:

A NEW BEGINNING
So let us begin our work not in large coalitions and superstructures
but in small affinity groups of friends. Within the context of our
communities, the radical decentralization of work, projects, and
responsibility strengthens the ability of anarchist groups to thrive
and do work which best suits their particular skills and interests.
We reject ineffective, tyrannical superstructures as the only means
to get work done. We can do thing by strengthening and supporting
existing affinity groups and collectives, Why not be as critical of the
need for large federations, coalitions, and other superstructures as
we are of the state, religion, bureaucracies, and corporations?
While no one strategy should be held eternally superior to all
others, our recent successes have defied the belief that we must be
part of some giant organization to get anything done. Take to heart
the thousands of DIY projects being done around the world, outside
of superstructures. We can come to meetings as equals and work
based on our passions and ideals, and then find others with whom
we share these ideals. Together we can protect our autonomy and
continue to fight for liberty trust, and true solidarity.

THE

INEFFICIENT

HOW

CONSENSUS

UTOPIA
WILL

OR

CHANGE

THE WORLD
Over and over again, anarchists have been critiqued, arrested, and
killed by fellow-travelers on the road to revolution because we
were deemed inefficient. Trotsky complained to his pal Lenin that
the anarchists in charge of the railways were inefficient devils.
Their lack of punctuality will derail our revolution. Lenin agreed,
and in 1919, the anarchist Northern Rail Headquarters was
stormed by the Red Guard and the anarchists were expelled from
their duties. Charges of inefficiency were not only a matter of
losing jobs for anarchists, but an excuse for the authorities to
murder them. Even today, anarchist principles are condemned
roundly by those on the Left as simply not efficient enough. We are
derided because we would rather be opening a squat or cooking big
meals for the hungry than selling newspapers. These criticisms
from the larger activist scene have had scurrilous effects. More
disturbing than these outside attacks, anarchists have begun to

Mutual aid has long been the guiding principle by which anarchists
work together: The paradox of mutual aid is that we can only
protect our own autonomy by trusting others to be autonomous.
Superstructures do the opposite and seek to limit autonomy and
work based on affinity in exchange for playing on our arrogant
fantasies and the doling out of power: Decentralization is the basis
of not only autonomy (which is the hallmark of liberty), but also of
trust. To have genuine freedom, we have to allow others to engage
in their work based on their desires and skills while we do the
same. We can hold no power from them or try to coerce them into
accepting our agenda. The successes that we have in the streets
and in our local communities almost always come from groups
working together: not because they are coerced and feel dutybound, but out of genuine mutual aid and solidarity.
We should continue to encourage others to do their work in
coordination with ours. In anarchist communities, we should come
together as equals: deciding for ourselves with whom we wish to
form affinity groups or collectives. In accordance with that
principle, each affinity group should be able to freely choose which
groups they want to work. These alliances might last for weeks or
for years. for a single action or for a sustained campaign, with two
groups, or two hundred. Our downfall is when the larger
organization becomes our focus, not the work that it was created
for. We should work together but only with equal status and with
no outside force, neither the State, god nor some coalition,
determining the direction or shape of the work we do. Mutual trust
allows us to be generous with mutual aid. Trust promotes
relationships where bureaucracies, formal procedures, and large
meetings promote alienation and atomization. We can afford to be
generous with our limited energies and resources while working
with others because these relationships are voluntary and based on
a principle of equality. No group should sacrifice their affinity
autonomy or passions for the privilege to work with others, just as
we are very careful with whom we would work with in an affinity
group, we should not offer to join a coalition with groups with
whom we do not share mutual trust.
We can and should work with other groups and collectives, but
only on the basis of autonomy and trust. It is unwise and
undesirable to demand that particular group must agree with the
decisions of every other group. During demonstrations, this
principle is the foundation of the philosophy of "diversity of tactics."
It is bizarre that anarchists demand diversity of tactics in the
streets but then are coerced by calls for unity in these large
coalitions. Can't we do better? Fortunately we can.

our own lives.

There is no science of change. Revolution is not scientific. Activists
should not be specialists in social change any more than artists
should be experts in self-expression. The great lie of all experts is
their claim to have access to the exclusive, the untouchable, even
the unimaginable. The experts of revolution, unloved and
untenured, demand many things besides your allegiance. Above all
they demand efficiencya place in the well-oiled machine.
In place of backyard gardens and public transportation, efficiency
has created genetically engineered food and highways with sixteen
lanes. Efficiency demands the illusion of progress no matter how
meaningless. Our rejection of efficiency has led to many amazing
projects. Food Not Bombs may not be the most efficient way to
deliver food to those who are hungry, but they are often more
effective in their aims and more meaningful than any government
program, religious handout, or efficient corporation. McDonalds
promises us a quick, efficient version of the dining experience; isn't
that the exact opposite of what we want our world to look like?
Efficiency drives many campaigns and projects; too many activists
have made themselves into characters as unbelievable and shallow
as those in television commercials. Their quest for efficient,
marketable issues has brought them into a competition with
businesses, governments and other activists for the imagination of
the public.
Like mass, efficiency is a key deity in the pantheon of dinosaur
thought. There is nothing wrong with the desire to get things done;
some necessary projects never hover far from drudgery and are best
finished as quickly as possible. Yet our personal relationships and
shared desires for change are not things to be hurried through, prerecorded, and made-for-television. The hedged bet of the efficient
activist is that since freedom is never lived but only discussed, all
change must be preplanned and tedious. These experts include the
bureaucrats shaking in their loafers at the thought of a folk revolt
without the Party's permission or guidance. Such people have
dragged their heels through revolutionary history: today they are
the ones that fear the chaos of a demonstration, or talk about class
struggle without reference to what is revolutionary about the
refusal of constraints in daily life. Yes, they are precisely the ones
with corpses in their mouths! They shiver at the thought that ideas
or the people who hold them might get out of hand. For the selfproclaimed experts in social change, the most efficient
demonstration is one with a single clear message, clear audience,
and preplanned script... preferably a script written by them.

Will we ape these political machines? Will we ache to be State-like?

The Leftist version of the machine will once again grind down
differences to create a final product: the End of History, Utopia, The
Revolution. The machines consume our vitality and contribute to
the burnout so widespread in our communities. A mass mailing
might be more efficient than talking to strangers, or setting up a
lemonade stand in the park, but it isnt necessarily more effective.
There is something to be said for taking the long route from here to
there. Any time we leave our problems to be fixed by experts, we
cede a little more of our autonomy. The judges, the professors, the
scientists, the politicians, the cops, the bankers: these are the
engines of efficiency. Their tools can never transform our
relationships or our society; they only calcify and harden the
fucked-up ones we already have. In their world, there will always be
consumers and consumed, prisoners and captors, debtors and
shareholders. The small dinosaurs who challenge the larger ones
may want to change the world, but they'll do so according to a
master plan written not by you or me, but by armchair experts.

THE

END

OF

THE

DINOSAURS

IS

JUST THE BEGINNING

There is a way out. The exit door out of the consumer-deathtrapcapitalist-claptrap-government-mousetrap wont be found by
running away to that mythical somewhere else, whether it is a
commune, the woods, or your parents' basement. We have to
confront and start changing the current mess. This requires us not
to act as a mass of isolated consumers following established
ideologies, but as individuals creating our own futures. The old
mythologies had The Revolution, Democracy, Utopia. To some
extent, all of these have rung false. In the creation of something
new and meaningful, we just have each other.
Our communities of resistance are scattered across North America
and the world: sometimes young and furious, sometimes mature
and experienced, but always ready for love or war. These
interactions are the stirrings of something beautiful. Anarchists
have big hearts and big dreams. We are not the first to have these
thoughts: no, we have ancestors. Instead of worship or ignorance of
the past, we must make our own tools, our own stories, and our
own legends.
Anarchy is the name we have given to the arrow aimed at the heart

discussion and debate, any one group should convince the others
that their particular agenda will be meaningful, productive, and
enjoyable for all.

LIBERTY,

TRUST

AND

TRUE

SOLIDARITY
If we seek a truly liberated society in which to flourish. we must
also create a trusting society. Cops, armies, laws, governments,
religious specialists, and all other hierarchies are essentially based
on mistrust. Superstructures and coalitions mimic this basic
distrust that is so rampant and detrimental in the wider society. In
the grand tradition of the Left, large organizations today feel that
due to their size or mission, they have a right to micromanage the
decisions and actions of all its members. For many activists, this
feeling of being something larger than themselves fosters an
allegiance to the organization above all. These are the same
principles that foster nationalism and patriotism. Instead of
working through and building initiatives and groups that we
ourselves have created and are based in our own communities, we
work for a larger organization with diluted goals, hoping to convince
others to join us. This is the trap of the Party, the three letter
acronym group, and the large coalition.
In large groups, power is often centralized, controlled by officers (or
certain working groups) and divvied out, as it would be done by any
bureaucratic organization. In fact, a great deal of its energies are
devoted to guarding this power from others in the coalition. In
groups that attempt to attract anarchists (such as antiglobalization and anti-war coalitions) this centralization of power is
transferred to certain high profile working groups such as Media or
Tactical, even though usually the Housing, Food, Medical, and
Legal groups usually do a better job. Regardless of how it appears
on the outside, superstructures foster a climate in which tiny
minorities have disproportionate influence over others in the
organization.
As anarchists, we ordinarily reject all notions of centralized power
and power hoarding. We should be critical of anything that
demands the realignment of our affinities and passions for the good
of an organization or abstract principle like the overused term
"unity." We should guard our autonomy with the same ferocity with
which the superstructures wish to strip us of it.

We all know that most large coalitions and superstructures have

exceedingly long meetings. Here's a valuable exercise: the next time
you find yourself bored by an overlong meeting, count the number
of people in attendance. Then multiply that number by how long
the meeting laststhis will give you the number of people-hours
devoted to keeping the organization alive. Factor in travel time,
outreach time and the propaganda involved in promoting the
meeting and that will give you a rough estimate of the amount of
hours consumed by the greedy maw of the superstructure. After
that nightmarish vision, stop and visualize how much could be
accomplished if this immense amount of time, resources and
energy were actually spent on the project at hand instead of what is
so innocently referred to as activism."

AFFINITY OR BUST
Not only are superstructures wasteful, but they also require that we
mortgage our ideals and affinities. By definition, coalitions seek to
create and enforce agendas. These are not merely agendas for a
particular meeting but larger priorities for what type of work is
important. Within non-anarchist groups, this prioritization often
leads to an organizational hierarchy to ensure that all members of
the group promote the overall agenda.
A common example is the role of the media person or spokesman
(and it is almost always a man) whose comments are accepted as
the opinion for dozens, hundreds, or sometimes thousands of
people. In groups without a party-line or platform, we certainly
shouldn't accept any other person speaking for usas individuals,
affinity groups, or collectives. While the delusions of media stars
and spokes people are merely annoying, superstructures can lead
to scenarios with much graver consequences. In mass mobilizations
or actions, the tactics of an entire coalition are often decided by a
handful of people. For anarchists, such a concentration of influence
and power in the hands of a few is simply unacceptable, yet all too
often we go along with it for the sake of building alliances.
It has long been a guiding principle of anarchist philosophy that
people should engage in activities based on their affinities and that
our work should be meaningful, productive, and enjoyable. This is
the hidden benefit of voluntary association. It is arrogant to believe
that members in a large structure, which again can number in the
hundreds or thousands of people, should all have identical
affinities and ideals. It is arrogant to believe that through

of every dinosaur. It is not a religion and it is not merely an

ideology or brand of politics; it is a living, evolving ecology of
resistance. It is simply a promise we have made to ourselves. In the
following pages you will find one collective's attempt at describing
folk approaches to anarchy today. There are undoubtedly many
more versions, but they are connected by a web of actions: we will
fight, we will create, we will love, and we will evolve. Anarchy isn't
somewhere else, some other time: it's the most meaningful path
between ourselves and freedom.

BEYOND DUTY AND JOY

Too many friendships, collectives, and projects have been
needlessly scuttled due to schisms over our basic motives for
engaging in political work. These divisions over our fundamental
motivations threaten even the most ideologically "pure" projects or
collectives. This obstacle is more pervasive and destructive than
Green vs. Red sectarianism or the earlier division over Pacifism vs.
Direct Action. They also have the unfortunate ability to rip apart
friendships and leave people wondering what went wrong. Despite
the perennial and pernicious aspects of this conflict over
motivations, very little has been written about it from an anarchist
perspective.
So what exactly is this implicit threat to collective work? The
answer can be found in people's basic motivations for engaging in
projects. As we all know, much of the work we do is unglamorous
and demands a great deal of energy and resources. Our actions
often fail to live up to our lofty expectations and at times, they can
even put us in serious danger. Burnout is an incredibly common
malady for activists who have put enormous amounts of time and
energy into their projects. Because of these pitfalls, understanding
the motivations of the people we choose to work with is every bit as
important as knowing their politics. Projecting your own
motivations onto others in a collective is a sure recipe for
resentment and disaster.
Traditionally there have been two major strains of motivations (or
perceived motivations) in anarchist politics: Duty and Joy. Like any
duality, it is easy to fall into the trap of simplistic black and white
labels, ignoring the more realistic continuum of grays. Instead,
think of these of two motivations as the end points on a continuum,
illuminating everything in between.
Motivations cannot be separated from expectations. We are

motivated to engage in particular projects because we have certain

favorable expectations about our commitment. Expectations that
are not collectively shared, or even expressed, can be detrimental to
setting a course for projects. Because meeting expectations is the
main way we evaluate the efficacy of any work or project,
differences in expectations will cause differences in evaluations.
These differences are capable of crippling the ability of a collective
to learn from past mistakes, since different measuring sticks are
being used. Just as Duty and Joy are inherently different
motivations, so will there be an equally divergent set of
expectations that in turn lead to conflicting evaluations and
analyses of what success means for a collective or project.
Fundamental motivational orientations, such as Duty and Joy are
more tenacious than other political disagreements because they are
often a result of basic personality traits. Motivations that reside in
the subconscious or unconscious are resistant to most forms
intellectual
arguments,
historical
precedents,
logical
manipulations, and other conscious mechanisms. In short, our
reasons for doing particular projects can't always be explained
intellectually. These conflicting motivational traits are potentially
the most divisive element we encounter in our daily collective work.
To find our way out of this minefield of motivational psychology, we
need to understand how these two polarizing types manifest
themselves and seek new ways of doing things that complement
both of them.
Duty has been the traditional motive for radical projects; until
recently it was the most prevalent trend in anarchist communities.
This is undoubtedly due to our tragic history. Anarchist struggles
have for the most part been a string of bitter defeats, repressions,
and marginalizations. So what has motivated comrades to work so
hard and selflessly for so many dark years? The answer seems to
be a strong sense of Duty based on a heightened notion of justice
married to a belief in a better world. The Duty model has created a
cult of martyrs--those who have given up everything for the Cause.
Those working within the Duty model expect the work to be hard
and unappreciated but still feel it must be done. Duty- bound
anarchists give little thought about whether their work is joyful or
fulfilling. Duty-driven political work tends to be characterized by
endless meetings, struggle, shit-work, and long hours. One's
commitment is measured by a simple formula of labor-hours to
unpleasantness of tasks volunteered for. Sacrifice becomes a
consistent and reified ideal for Duty-bound anarchists. Due to the
amount of energy and unsatisfying work consumed, there is a deep
concern about longevity of projects and evaluations about their

the desire for mass remains strong. Lets re-examine how we

organize projects in order to awake from the nightmare of
bureaucracy centralization, and ineffective projects. The rejection of
mass organizations as the be-all, end-all of organizing is vital for
the creation and rediscovery of possibilities for empowerment and
effective anarchist work.

THE TYRANNY OF STRUCTURE

Most mass structures are a result of habit, inertia, and the lack of
creative critique. Desire for mass is accepted as common sense in
the same way it is "common sense" that groups must have leaders,
or that they must make decisions by voting. Even anarchists have
been tricked into accepting the necessity of superstructures and
large organizations for the sake of efficiency, mass, and unity.
These superstructures have become a badge of legitimacy and they
are often the only conduits by which outsiders, whether the media,
the police, or the traditional Left. can understand us. The result is
an alphabet soup of mega-groups that largely exist to propagate
themselves and sadly do little else. Unfortunately we haven't just
been tricked into accepting superstructures as the overriding venue
of our work: many of us have gone along willingly because the
promise of mass is a seductive one.
Large coalitions and superstructures have become the modus
operandi not only for Leftist groups in general but also for
anarchist enterprises. They appeal to activists arrogant fantasies of
mass. Even our best intentions and wildest dreams are often
crowded out by visions of the black clad mob storming the Bastille
or the IMF headquarters.
The price of the arrogant dream of mass is appallingly high and the
promised returns never come. Superstructures such as federations,
centralized networks, and mass organizations demand energy and
resources to survive. They are not perpetual-motion machines that
produce more energy than is poured into them. In a community of
limited resources and energy like ours, a superstructure can
consume most of these available resources, rendering the entire
group ineffective. Mainstream non-profits have recently illustrated
this tendency Large organizations like the Salvation Army
commonly spend 2/3 of their monies (and even larger amounts of
their labor) on simply maintaining their existence: officers,
outreach, meetings, and public appearance. At best, only 1/3 of
their output actually goes to their stated goals. The same trend is
replicated in our political organizations.

to be done? Why create counter-structures while there are protests

to organize, art installations to be readied, bands to see, and
manifestos to be written? What is the political value in cruising the
streets in a beat up van taking old ladies to the local CSA for a sack
of turnips? Why open up a free babysitting service as the nation
gears up for another insane war? What could be the possible
political motive for opening and fixing up a squat for a few families
when over 35,000 folks are sleeping on our citys streets? Who
cares about a crudely Xeroxed zine when most Americans get their
news from television moguls? Arent there better things we
anarchists should be doing?
In short, the answer is a resounding "No." These more "important
things" are impossible without a viable anarchist infrastructure.
You can't stop a war, shut down an IMF meeting or create a free
and egalitarian society without an effective decentralized
infrastructure. The good news is that this infrastructure allows you
to be more effective in your struggles against the War, the State,
and the entire capitalist system. To get people onto the streets, we
have to ensure there is also shelter: food, legal, communications,
and medics on those streets. We are not only political beings but
flesh and blood animals that need food, water, a place to rest our
heads, and health to engage in social and political work.
Infrastructure is not only something that large bureaucracies can
provide. For most of recorded history, humans have provided for
the needs of their communities without of hierarchical and coercive
institutions. Society is complex but this is mostly a result of the
tendency of the authorities hoarding power and wealth. The more
explicitly anarchist infrastructure we have, the more time. energy
and resources there are to wage a serious resistance. For these
reasons building this infrastructure is meaningful political and
cultural work. There are many untapped skills, materials, and
ideas in our communities if we are only willing to search them out.

D E C E N T R A L I Z A T I O N

I N

ANARCHIST ORGANIZING
For too long, anarchist projects have been mismanaged by arrogant
fantasies of mass. We have unconsciously adopted the dinosaur
(statist, capitalist and authoritarian) belief that "bigger equals
better" and that we must tailor our actions and groups towards this
end. Despite our intuitive understandings that large organizations
rarely accomplish more than small, tight groups working together,

effectiveness in promoting the cause. Duty tends to put a lot of

emphasis on maintaining projects. Often considerable energy is
used to perpetuate projects that may have outlived their original
function or have never reached their potential.
The expectations of those working from a Duty model tend to be
externalized. The evaluation of success and failure is based on
external factors. These factors usually include media exposure,
impact in the community, recruitment, funds raised, or longevity.
Many of these expectations are easily quantifiable and thus
empirical analysis is the prime form of evaluation for Duty-bound
anarchists. This emphasis on quantity and empiricism leads to a
desire to increase quantifiable results. The Duty-bound approach is
similar (in motivations, expectations, and evaluations) to historic
and current trends of the political Left.
Joy is a relatively new oppositional force in anarchist work, though
we have always paid at least lip-service to joy in anarchist thinking.
This is exemplified by Emma Goldman's famous quote "If I cant
dance, I dont want to be part of your revolution." The newer joy
model in anarchism comes from the punk, pagan, and traveling
cultures of the late 1980s and is a direct inheritance of the hippies
and 1960s New Left. Its motivation is based on the pleasure
principle. Joy seeks to turn political work into play. It rejects the
martyr and sacrifice tropes of the old Left and replaces them with
carnival and celebratory metaphors. Joy judges political work not
on labor hours or sacrifice but on how exciting and empowering a
project may be on a personal and collective level. Due to the need of
activism to be exciting and empowering, joy fueled projects are
often transitoryfalling apart soon after the initial thrill fades. They
often give little thought to the long-term impact of projects on their
community. Joy motivated anarchists also tend to be more
skeptical of the historical projects that Duty-bound anarchists
revere.
Just as with Duty, activists motivated by joy have expectations that
are shaped by their motivations. The expectation of work tends to
be internalized. Emphasis is given to subjective experiences and
focuses on qualitative changes as opposed to quantitative
measurements. Expectations often include fun, empowerment of
the participants, consciousness raising, excitement, creativity and
novelty. Projects that fail to meet these qualitative measures are
viewed as deficient and ones that reach at least some of these goals
as successful regardless of any outside impact. The joyful emphasis
on individual needs, subjective experiences, and empowerment are
more typical of certain strands of hedonistic hippie and punk

subcultures than of the traditional political Left.

Since few anarchist projects neatly fit into either the Duty or the joy
styles, especially at the beginning, these personalities find
themselves working together. At first, this can lead to tension and
subsequently leads to resentment and expulsion. This has
happened so many times in recent years that it has led to a
completely irrelevant "Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism"
debate that fails to do anything except alienate and misrepresent
both types of motivations. We realize that the discussion of Duty
and Joy could create a similar divide, and if this was our goal, it
would be hypocritical. Instead, we should try to understand the
entire spectrum of motivations without attempting to create a false
"unity" in motivation, or on the other hand, starting another
sectarian battle. Seeking Meaning from the Duty and joy styles can
be compared to process of achieving consensus.
A shorthand has been developed by both ends of the continuum to
attack each other without shedding on light on the real
motivational differences that effect their commitments. This creates
yet one more way for anarchists to factionalize.
This essay is not simply a call for everyone to come together: that
goal is highly unlikely and not even necessarily desirable. There are
serious shortcomings in both motivational approaches (pointed out
clearly by both sides of the divide) and thus a different set of
approaches are needed. To be successful a new approach must
complement the strengths of both the Duty and Joy styles in order
to maximize the solidarity within collectives working on anarchist
projects and minimize the existing tension between people who
embody either style.
The good news is that a sizable number of anarchists doing work
and engaged in projects are not on either extreme of the Duty-joy
continuum. We would like to suggest a motivational approach
based on Meaning. Hopefully the articulation of Meaning will not
only alleviate the tension that suffocates most projects but also
provide impetus for novel and successful projects.
Motivations based primarily on Meaning have always been part of
anarchy; in fact, the term Meaning has been used by both the Duty
and Joy camps to justify their approach while attacking each other.
Since the word Meaning has been claimed by both styles, it is
important to explain what is meant by motivations based on
Meaning. Erich Fromm described motivations based on Meaning to
"contain both the objective [Duty] and subjective [joy] ways of

spaces, Indymedia, Internet services, health and medic collectives,

and food cooperatives. Although the current anarchist
infrastructure is far from perfect (We are definitely in the need of a
few good anarchist surgeons!) it does exist outside of textbooks and
wishful thinking. Unlike oppressive dinosaur infrastructure,
anarchist counter-structure's real strength lies in its ability to
inspire others to replicate and expand itself.
There is no master cabal organizing the three-hundred plus Food
Not Bombs or mad genius organizing the dozens of Indymedias
across the globe. We can all be the johnny and jane Appleseeds of
anarchist counter-structure. We do this by harvesting good ideas
and strategies from across the globe and replicating them on the
local level. And while our passions and ideas should be brash, we
should also be inspired by our day-to-day victories. People need to
feel encouraged to start small, realizing that infrastructure begets
infrastructure.
If your neighborhood has hungry people, do not fret over getting a
nonprofit license from the State, looking for a place to rent, or
deciding how a food pantry will be run. Start small. Get some
friends together, look for food you do not need or can easily replace,
and make a meal. Throw a party with free food for anyone that
wants it by taking a bag of sandwiches to the park or the subway
and passing them out. Maybe everyone around you is sick of the
corporate news. Go onto Indymedia or Infoshop and grab a news
posting or item, print copies and give them away during your lunch
break to discuss it. If there is no place for a meeting, open your
home, squat a table at the library, or meet in a park.
The beauty of small-scale infrastructure is that it is participatory.
Not only does it provide a needed service (food, space, water,
transportation, and so on) but it is directly responsible to the
community it serves and also allows people to learn skills from
each other: It draws on the needs of the community and the already
present local resources and skills. This is the underlying advantage
of decentralized infrastructure: it brings together mutual aid and
the do-it-yourself ethic in a way that empowers both the
participants and the benefactors, blurring the line between
producer and consumer: Instead of being a mere service,
decentralized infrastructure actually empowers those it serves while
being able to immediately respond to the changing needs of the
community.
Why should anarchists spend their limited resources and energy
working on infrastructure when there are other projects that need

THE

understanding." Meaning is determined by analyzing the external

effects and testing them against internal feelings. An anarchist
motivated by Meaning seeks both personal (internalized) and public
(externalized) impact from their efforts.

Over the last decade there has been a lot of passionate discussion
amongst anarchists about the need for infrastructure in North
America. Despite this profound desire for an explicitly anarchist
infrastructure, there has been little collective activity or even clear
visions about what this could look like.

Projects viewed in terms of their Meaning can be evaluated more

fully and appreciated more deeply from this perspective than from
the other two limited approaches, namely because it acknowledges
both quantifiable and qualitative desires. Our efforts can now be
judged on multiple axes. No longer is it simply a matter of how
many hours a person works but also of the enjoyment she can
manifest from her activities. A project need not be judged simply on
how exciting and fun it is but also by how effective it is in achieving
its goal. Neither side of the continuum is superior to the other.
Instead, harmony is sought in order to create Meaning. The
application of both expectations creates a richer and more nuanced
analysis of our politics. Meaning also provides a useful tool for
deciding which projects are worth expending our limited energy and
resources.

INFRASTRUCTURE

FOR

HELL OF IT!

Infrastructure seems just too damn big to think about, much less
accomplish. When we think about infrastructure. things like
transportation. communication networks, power, sewage, and
housing come to mind. Or else we imagine giant public works
projects that cost millions of dollars, require the labor of thousands
of people, and often take decades or more to realize. No wonder
most of us are paralyzed by the idea of infrastructure! Worse, this
paralysis leads to a great deal of skepticism about the possibility of
an anarchist society's chance of thriving. However, there is a
different kind of infrastructure and it is small, free, and festivean
infrastructure very alien to the massive dinosaur infrastructure
around us today. What we are working for is a counter-structure
that will allow us to live not only outside of, but against, the
current infrastructure.
Counter-structure happens, without even planning for it. It is
insidious and creeps into our projects on kitten paws. Counterstructure organically grows in reaction to the immediate physical
environment and current events, which is why Food Not Bombs
(FNB) is so popular in America but not in a country like Scotland
where there are many soup kitchens and government aid programs.
FNB, in particular; has a folk anarchist quality because it is more
than just infrastructure to fulfill immediate needs; it empowers all
who take part in its genuine relationships based on mutual aid.
The homeless (or home-free, depending on her perspective) woman
who comes to Food Not Bombs for the free food has the opportunity
to begin cooking the food with the group and empowering herself.
After a short amount of time, she can become integral to the whole
endeavor and other projects as well. This process is the exact
opposite of the government (or church) sponsored soup kitchens
that immobilize hungry people, turning them into passive
consumers taking handouts from staff who function as specialized
producers. Food Not Bombs is only one of a number of counterstructural developments in our culture already: infoshops, free

The Meaningful approach has the advantage of reclaiming the

entire history of successful anarchist struggles and projects. It also
provides a way for comrades tied to the extremes of the continuum
to work with each other without surrendering or repressing their
motivations. When we seek Meaning in our projects, we demand
the fullest realization of our efforts and resources. We will no longer
settle for either end of the continuum but seek the entire nexus.
An emphasis on Meaning limits the destructive effect of another
perennial obstacle in anarchist work: burnout. Burn-out comes
when too much of our time and resources are squandered on
meaningless projects. Meaningful endeavors actually create energy
and gifts. They provide more impetus to continue our struggles,
achieving long-standing projects. Meaning-based projects provide
exciting opportunities and novel experiences that appeal to people
all along the Duty-joy spectrum.
In a culture that mass-produces both expectations of Dutyintensive labor and products of joyous hedonism. Meaning justifies
the price of our labor, resources, and lives. Capitalism thrives on
the extremes of the Duty-joy continuum by creating meaningless
relationships that divide us into workers or consumers. Anarchy
provides a solution for this absurd, dualistic society. Meaningful
projects will be a better enticement for experienced anarchists and
new folks alike.

Only projects that honestly attempt to balance both external and

internal needs will have any hope of providing lasting resistance to
the meaningless miasma of everyday consumer culture. Neither
Duty nor Joy alone can develop new and better ways of living in
vibrant communities of resistance. Another world is indeed
possible, but it must be a meaningful one.

CELL,

CLIQUE,

OR

AFFINITY

GROUP?
The term "affinity group" is often bandied around in anarchist
circles. However there are quite a few misconceptions of the exact
nature of affinity groups and how we can use them to bring about
radical change. Affinity group structures share some obvious
characteristics with both cells and cliques, yet they exist in
different contexts. It can be very difficult for an outside observer to
determine if any particular group of people is a cell. a clique, or an
affinity group, and this has undoubtedly led to confusion. All three
groups are made up of a few individuals, say three to nine, who
work together, support each other: and have a structure typically
closed to outsiders. Depending on their goals, they may engage in a
multitude of projects, ranging from the mundane to the
revolutionary but the similarities end there.
A cell is part of a larger organization or a movement with a unified
political ideology. Often cells receive direction from the larger
community that they are a part of. Generally cells are "work"
oriented, and do not rely on socialization as a primary goal.
Particular cells are connected to one another (in the same
organization) by a shared vision, though they may employ a range
of tactics.
A clique, on the other hand, is a group of people that have cut
themselves off from a larger community or organization. Social
cliques are common; good examples can be found in any high
school in groups such as jocks, preppies, geeks, or nerds. Cliques
tend to be isolated and prefer to create inflexible boundaries
between themselves and the rest of the community they are
associated with. Cliques rarely have a focus on work or projects.
An affinity group is an autonomous group of individuals that
shares a particular vision. Though the vision may not be identical
amongst its members, an affinity group shares certain common
values and expectations. Affinity groups emerge out of larger

us to buy into itcould there be a way to fight for change without

treating activism as a market for justice?
Obsessive focus on single issue campaigns can lead us to end treat
causes, and each other, as objects with a particular value ready for
display or consumption. Nearly every campaign is connected and
necessary and weve got to win them all to really accomplish
anythingwinning in ways that the government and the
corporations will never see coming. Anarchy has the flexibility to
overcome many of the traditional problems of activism by focusing
on revolution not as another cause but as a philosophy of living.
This philosophy is as concrete as a brick being thrown through a
window or flowers growing in gardens. By making our daily lives
revolutionary we destroy the artificial separation between activism
and everyday life. Why settle for comrades and fellow activists when
we can have friends and lovers?

COURAGE IS CONTAGIOUS
There is a sacred myth among some anarchists that punks, traveler
kids, and their ilk alienate the masses. Some sincerely believe that
if we only present a clean-cut face, centuries of anti-anarchist
propaganda will evaporate under the light of our wholesome smiles.
Patches, tattoos, piercings, masks, black clothing, and even the
word "anarchy" itself have been blamed for the perceived apathy
most Americans feel about the issues we are fighting for. Some
argue that there is too much "individualism" in our communities.
These criticisms ignore the strengths the anarchist community
actually has.
If we hope to make real impacts in our communities and the
outside world we should focus on inspiration, instead of worrying
about alienation. The goal of overthrowing the State and ending
capitalism is impossible without challenging the traditions and
habits of ordinary peoples lives; we should not pretend that SUVs
or stock options will be a part of our future lives. Anarchy has
always been a gamble with high stakes and impossible odds; and
staying active year after year demands cleverness, commitment,
and courage. Few of us are brave enough to deal with the
overwhelming powers of the dinosaurs alone. Individual courage
does not create cultures of resistance. We need to cultivate our
collective courage and build heroic communities. We should be the
barbarians at the gate, not a horde of inoffensive clones.

have grown so much in recent years, even if they appear only to be

tiny storefronts, basement libraries, and warehouses scattered
across North America. These are the laboratories and workshops of
anarchy. As our networks expand, so has our ability to talk to each
other. Our capacity to communicate has been extremely successful
and prolific: music, writing, and performance. Dozens of anarchist
newspapers, thousands of zines, and handfuls of books have
created a media of expression and dissent. What we have today is
barely a drop in the bucket compared to the capitalist mediamachinery but we should not attempt to compete with them.
Rejection of mass doesn't mean that anarchists are doomed to be a
tiny irrelevant minority for the rest of our existence. It is possible
for hundreds of thousands of collectives and affinity groups to work
together in solidarity and respect for their differences.

OUR CAMPAIGN IS LIFE

So, we want to change the world. Where to begin? A smorgasbord of
issues and campaigns surrounds us on all sides, each clamoring
for attention. Should we fight to save the last of the ancient forests,
help the impoverished community down the street, advocate for the
homeless, fight white power, combat police brutality, shut down the
sweatshops, or aid the Landless Farmers' Movement in Brazil? The
problems seem so much bigger than any one person or group could
possibly comprehend. The world suffers from more injustice and
pain than any single person could hope to heal alone. We have to
do everything and more.
All around us, there is an array of ideologies offering ready-made
answers, be it the latest deviant sect of communism or Hare
Krishna consciousness. For those of us who have been "changing
the world" for many years, it's easy to be cynical about the
supermarket of ideologies that the modern activist an buy into. We
have to End some way of saving our world while avoiding easy
answers and false shortcuts.
Focusing on a single campaign is a common alleyway for activists
to get trapped in. Each campaign tries to advertise itself as the next
crucial battle against The Man, where results will finally be
achieved. The enemy of the particular campaign is often presented
as the real master of puppets behind the ills of the world, and the
enemies of all other competing campaigns nothing but puppets.
Each campaign competes for members among a limited pool of
activists, taking away time from not only other causes but from the
daily life of the activist, leading to burn out. Every campaign wants

communities, whether they are environmentalists in a particular

bio-region or members of a hip-hop group who perform together.
Any two affinity groups emerging from the same community may
have wildly different perspectives, interests, and tactics. This
variety is uncommon amongst cells. Affinity groups maintain a
stronger connection to their home communities and usually seek
ways to connect to other affinity groups and organizations in that
community. In this way they differ from cliques that seek to be
separate. An affinity group may also work closely with other groups
outside their own original community
Affinity groups have the political advantage of being able to create
connections that bridge diverse communities. Though affinity
groups are mostly closed structures (a common criticism leveled by
dinosaurs), most anarchists feel comfortable being part of multiple
affinity groups. These personal interconnections between affinity
groups can foster greater affinity and understandings between
diverse communities and generate substantial solidarity. This is the
"cross-pollination" effect. For example,a member of a direct action
affinity group who happens to also be a member of a feminist media
collective can create opportunities for both groups. The media
collective may become more militant while the direct action group
can be more open to feminist practices and ideas. Instead of trying
to merge direct action, media, and radical feminism into an
unwieldy super-group, the activist can pursue her multiple
interests in two groups that put their focus on their main interest.
Paradoxically, these closed affinity groups provide a safe and
supportive place for broader affinities to develop, thus creating a
wider web of mutual aid, understanding, and support.
While it is important to acknowledge the contextual limitations of
the cell and clique models, it is a mistake to write off the affinity
group for being elitist or closed. Affinity groups provide tremendous
possibilities for increasing the number of connections between
communities, while allowing folks a supportive environment to
pursue their particular interests and affinities.

PRIDE, PURITY, AND PROJECTS

Anarcho-pride is something worth promoting in our projects and
our lives. It is a form of transparency, allowing those who we
engage with to know, in shorthand, what we believe, and how we
behave. In short, it is honest. Anarcho-purity is the dark shadow of
anarcho-pride. Purity demands that everyone who works together
must share the same politics, agendas, and behaviornot only for

a given time or project, but for the entirety of their lives. This
creates a dysfunctional and unneeded strain of political Puritanism
that can cripple communities and create absurd "more anarchistthan-thou" debates. These debates have ravaged the animal rights
and vegan communities, not to mention dinosaur ideologies such
as Christianity. The difference between pride and purity are subtle
but extraordinarily important These differences affect how we work
with others and with whom we choose to spend time interacting
with.
Anarcho-pride allows us to work with individuals who appreciate, if
not share, our organizational principles, visions, and goals. It
allows all involved to make informed decisions, whether that be
putting on a benefit together or taking to the streets together. Yet
many people who are anarchists are wary of broadcasting this fact
to others. They fear that anarcho-pride will alienate potential allies.
Unfortunately, being in the closet about our motivations is
paternalistic and condescending, and can be an easy
rationalization for dishonesty. Hiding our identities as anarchists
presumes that other people are not intelligent or savvy enough to
make the decision to work with us based on our actual politics.
Political openness allows all groups to share their true goals and
interests. Openness inoculates coalitions and partnerships against
resentment and later misunderstandings. If groups or individuals
choose not work with us because we are anarchists, then we
should respect that decision. This is better than trying to fool them
into thinking we are something else and springing it on them "after
the Revolution" or street action, as the case may be. Striving to
create frank and open dialogue with groups and individuals we
wish to work with is our best chance to foster genuine solidarity.

AT

THE

DOORSTEP

OF

THE

ANARCHIST COMMUNITY
Since its infancy, anarchism (like many international social
movements) has been defined by its politics. No bones about it. we
are political beings. Anarchists have clear list of enemies: the State,
capitalism, and hierarchy We have an equally clear list of desires:
mutual aid. autonomy, and decentralization. While we're placing
bets that anarchy will provide a better life than the dinosaurs, there
is little stopping anarchism from becoming yet another orthodoxy
just as bad as Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Reformism,
Capitalism, Mormonism, or any other "-ism." Developments in the
past several years in North America have shown that the specific

tendency or narrow brand of anarchist politics are not as important

as the shared communities that we are creating out of those
politics. These communities are held together by practices, tactics,
and culture. We don't have to be a monoculture. Instead, think of
anarchy is an ecology of cultureslike microbes in the petri-dish or
a protest in the streetssomething that demands and thrives off
diversity.
Like any group of friends who work, and live together we are
developing a shared culture despite our diverse origins. Every
group of anarchists including the many people who live by
anarchist principles without ever opening a book by Kropotkin,
Emma, or CrimethInc, creates its own unique practices and
culture. We are weary of any new orthodoxy, although that is what
people raised in the West are trained to desire most: the Next Big
Thing, be it an author, TV show, movement or anything other than
what were doing in our own lives. Because culture can be so fluid,
transferable, and mutable, this has worked to our advantage.
Instead of anarchy from above, dictated by media darlings or
experts, there are dozens of competing, diverging, and mutating
versions of anarchy. This is a fundamentally good development.
Most anarchists are happy with this looseness and diversity. The
monoculture of dinosaurs can be rejected in favor of vibrant, folk
anarchies.
Community is something that anarchists recognize and strive for.
Yet what exactly these communities should be doing has been the
cause of many bitter debates. Depending on who you ask it might
be a pirate radio station available to a neighborhood, urban
guerrilla warfare, a collective house, torching ski resorts, a jazz
show, or a giant demonstration. These differences lead to banal
arguments that rarely aid the cultures or communities that the
critics long for. Instead of spending time grandstanding at the
podium, we all can stand to spend more of our time creating some
semblance of anarchist societies within the deranged culture we
presently live in! These communities of resistance are happening
throughout the world through the creation of semi-permanent
autonomous zones like infoshops and community gardens, free
clinics and organic farms, collective houses, and performance
spaces. We see glimpses of a better world in temporary autonomous
zones like mobilizations and convergences, squats and tree-sits,
street parties and free feasts. Because creating community is hard
work, our time is best spent actually manifesting and expressing
our passions in these arenas, not merely talking about them.
Autonomous zones are the physical manifestations of the ideas that