Tag: anarchism

Relationship Anarchy is not for fuckboys (or polyamorists)

This is really a great piece. Really great.

Real relationship anarchy is political. There’s just no way around it. How could it be otherwise, when it has roots in political anarchism? Relationship anarchy is not about getting your dick wet and looking cool while you do it. It’s not about sounding hipper than all the other polyamorists. You can do polyamory without any political consciousness whatsoever, and you can definitely do monogamy without it. You can be mono or poly in service of the capitalist hetero-patriarchy. Most people are. But you can’t do relationship anarchy without some awareness of the socio-political context you’re operating in and how you’re attempting to go against that grain out of a genuine belief in certain concrete principles. Those concrete principles are nothing so basic and shallow as “freedom” (to fuck) or “honesty.” They’re the kind of political principles that you can base an effective social movement on: a movement that offers an alternative to the capitalist hetero-patriarchy’s commodification of bodies, sex, and love; to the sabotage of female solidarity in friendship and romantic love; to neoliberal capitalism’s goal of the isolated couple and nuclear family; to the homophobia and toxic gender crap that prevents even nonsexual/nonromantic connection and intimacy between members of the same sex.

[…R]elationship anarchy resonates with me so much because its principles amount to a friendship ethic. The word “friendship” is widely used as a broad, vague, often meaningless term, but to me, friendship as this deep, intimate, important, positive bond between humans is described really well by the above set of principles. Friendship leans away from interpersonal coercion by default and can’t survive under the burden of it for long. Mutual aid and cooperation are in friendship’s very nature; you could even define friendship by those qualities: helping and supporting each other out of desire and not duty. And when friendship is committed, that commitment is done in a spirit of communication, not drawn up as a contract, which what marriage is: a legal contract binding romantic partners.


Being a relationship anarchist doesn’t mean you have to fuck more than one person at a time, because relationship anarchy is not about sexual nonmonogamy, even though it is usually inclusive of sexual nonmonogamy. Relationship anarchy is not polyamory sans the obvious hierarchy of romantic partners. It’s about doing relationships with community-centric values, not couple-centric values. Above all, it’s about relating to other human beings without coercive authority in play and without hierarchy in your group of relationships or in any relationship itself.

I fucking cringe when I read about polyamorous people defining “relationship anarchy” using nonhierarchal polyamory’s terms, just as I cringe when I hear stories of men pulling the RA card on their casual sexcapades. Not just because of how unbelievably inaccurate, apolitical, and ignorant it is but because in both cases, “relationship anarchy” is falsely used to describe the kind of romance supremacist, friendship-excluding, sex-centric lifestyles that are diametrically opposed to authentic relationship anarchy.

The capitalist, heteronormative, patriarchal state promotes relationship hierarchies based on romance supremacy and amatonormativity. It endorses treating sex like a product, protects heterosexual men in their consumption of female bodies as sexual objects, promotes the buying and selling of women’s sexualized bodies. The capitalist heteronormative patriarchal state WANTS you to invest all of your free time, energy, resources, and emotion into romantic couplehood, into marriage, into sex. It WANTS you to devalue friendship, to stay isolated from everyone who isn’t your romantic partner, to be a self-interested individual with no ties or commitments to anyone but your spouse. Why? Because friendship could lead to community and community could lead to collective political action, which could turn into revolution. And because friendship and community are almost impossible to commodify and harness for the purpose of feeding into the capitalist economy and creating bigger profits for the wealthy elite. Sex and romance make rich people money all day every day. They sell it to you every waking moment. They can’t use friendship and community to sell you shit. They can’t turn friendship and community into products. If they could, they would’ve spent the last century doing so, instead of teaching the public that friendship is worthless and money is more important than community.

So don’t tell me that you’re entitled to call your polyamory or your casual sex “relationship anarchy,” as you conduct your social life with anti-anarchism principles and the same amatonormativity that all the coupled up monogamists preach and believe in. Don’t tell me you’re a “relationship anarchist” when you don’t give a fuck about friendship or community or political resistance, just sex and romance and your freedom to be nonmonogamous.

Relationship anarchy is not a cover for fuckboys. And it is not nonhierarchical polyamory.

Prison Abolition Panel: Direct Action Software Development – SFLOKRC 2015

This year’s Students for Liberty Oklahoma Regional Conference (SFLOKRC) held a panel discussion and Q&A session focusing on prison abolition. On the panel were Cory Massimino, Nathan Goodman, and Rebecca Crane. The panel was also the first conference at which the newest project I’ve been working on, Better Angels/Buoy, was introduced to an audience of left libertarians and left-leaning anarchists. I’m glad there’s interest in an alternative to the state-sponsored, government-controlled, horribly centralized emergency dispatch infrastructure known as 9-1-1.

I recorded Rebecca’s introductory presentation to the Q&A and panel. Below is a video of the presentation and a transcript. As usual, please share and republish to your heart’s content.

Rebecca Crane: I’m assuming that everybody here is convinced that we should abolish prisons. And so I’m going to talk a little bit about how we as individual people can get involved in that work on the ground. I am not a Libertarian and I’ve heard that there are a lot of people at this conference that also don’t identify as Libertarians, so I’m in good company. I actually came to activism through social justice. I was a teenage social justice warrior way back before there was such a thing as Tumblr.

Audience: [laughter]

Rebecca Crane: And as a social justice warrior, I have to point out that we are a panel of three white people up here talking about prison abolition, and so there’s some really important perspectives about this conversation that isn’t being represented. But I just want to take a moment to hold some space to acknowledge who’s not here in this conversation.

So, y’know, throughout my life I have gotten involved in a bunch of different movements. Restorative Justice is similar to Transformative Justice [discussed earlier in the panel], it’s ways of thinking about ways we might preempt the way that the sentencing process works. Anti-racist activist, queer liberation work, social anarchism. Ultimately, all of these things lead to prison abolition.

It was a bit of a hard concept for me to grasp when I was starting out. I mean, it feels very intense. Like, “Uhhh, what do we do if we don’t have prisons? What do we do with the rapists and the murderers and the pedophiles and all of this?”

And I really appreciated Per Bylund’s talk this morning because even though there’s been some great suggestions about what are things that could replace the prison system, the real issue is that the thing we’re doing now doesn’t work. It’s not preventing crime. It’s not making communities safer. It’s only making things worse and it’s not solving the problems that it claims to solve. And so I feel like the question that when people ask, y’know, “Well how could we get rid of prisons? What else would we do?” Well, the answer is, “We may not know, but we’re doing now isn’t working. So we have try something else.” And we’ve all been immersed in this context of state violence all our lives, so it’s hard for us to look outside of this context and imagine what it might be like to live in a world where state violence is not the solution to crime or to interpersonal violence, but we’re not going to be able to come up with a solution just by sitting around talking about it until we find this perfect utopian ideal. We have to just try some stuff.

So one of the things that I’ve been trying over the past couple of years with some other collaborators, one of them being maymay who’s here today, is try to use new technologies to build some non-state alternatives for community justice and crisis response. So, just as a couple of examples of these, the one that’s gotten the most press—you can’t actually see the whole slide here, um—this is the Predator Alert Tool. It’s a software that exists for a bunch of different social networking sites.

The two ones that I most primarily want to talk about here is the one that exists for Facebook and there’s also a Predator Alert Tool for a site called FetLife, which is kind of a BDSM/fetish social network dating site. And these are tools that allow people who have been victims of sexual violence to communicate with other people in their communities about their experiences. The one that was built for FetLife is specifically—because it’s a small community that uses the site anyway, it’s a way for people to be able to, like, let the whole website know, “Hey, this is this experience I had with this person at this time.” The one that exists for Facebook, because Facebook tends to be more lots of these atomic social networks that are connected to each other, it allows people to say, I, as a survivor, had an experience and I want to be able to connect with other people of my social community who had an experience with the same person. So I can say, “I went to this party, this person put a drug in my drink. I don’t want to talk about this publicly, but I do want to talk to anybody else who has had a similar experience with that same person.” So I can post a little thing and it’ll only be shown to other people who made a similar comment about that person. It just takes advantage of Facebook’s granular privacy settings in some various ways.

And again, these are all experiments. They’re very beta. They’re very proof-of-concept. But they’re ways for people to sort of think about how might we talk about our experiences of sexual violence and building community support and resourcing around preventing and recovering from sexual violence in ways that don’t involve calling the police, which is typically not a system that’s very helpful to survivors of sexual violence anyway.

The tool that we’re working on right now is called Better Angels, and the specific packaging of Better Angels, Buoy, is built for a domestic violence use case. But this is a community-based emergency crisis response app. And so the idea is that I, as a user, would have this on my phone. I set up the people that I want voluntarily on my crisis response team. So I say, if I’m in an emergency situation I don’t want to call 9-1-1. I want to call my brother, my best friend, this friend of mine who lives down the street who’s like a Black Belt in karate, and somebody I know who’s really trained in medical care, and the advocate I know that works at the local shelter. So I set up my own team, and then if I’m in a crisis situation, I just have one click, I hit the button. This alert goes out to all the people in my network. They get an alert saying, y’know, Rebecca’s in crisis. I [Rebecca] can put a little message to say, “My house is on fire!” Or, like, “I’m being harassed by the cops!” They get a message, it shows them where I am, a map of where they are in relation to me, where any other responders are in relation to them, and it drops everybody into a little chat room so that people can coordinate a response. So they can say, “Okay, I see on the map that you’re the closest person to Rebecca. Why don’t you go over there and see what she needs. I’m going to go to the school to pick up her kids.” Y’know, this [other responder] can go to the hospital, or this person can go to the Walgreens and get some band-aids, or whatever else is needed.

So, again, this is just an experiment. This one is in development right now. But these are both examples of a larger concept—which, I also can’t show you the whole slide for?—this idea we’ve been playing with of software development as a form of direct action. So, we’ve probably all heard a lot about hacktivism and Anonymous, going around and leaking things, and breaking into the FBI website or whatever. And, y’know, there’s a very anarchic element to this kind of, like, burn and destroy hacktivist ethic. But there’s also, I think an anarchic element an idea of using technology as a way to build alternative community mechanisms and so these are just a couple of experiments that we’ve done. And there’s a lot more out there!

I wish there was a way to…like, how do I? Is there a way to show you the whole thing?

Nathan Goodman: I can write the URL [of your blog] on the board if you want.

Rebecca Crane: Yeah, yeah, just do that. Thanks. How do I go back to the slideshow?

Audience member: I think you can press ESCape.

Rebecca Crane: Okay. Oh, there we go.

Nathan Goodman: Oh, cool. I guess I don’t need to write it down on the board.

Rebecca Crane: Okay! So, this blog post, the “Software Development as Direct Action” is on my blog there [at unquietpirate.wordpress.com]. I think if you just to that URL the top post right now is about Relationship Anarchy, but you can scroll down and I think this is the second post on my blog right now.

So, if you’re interested, and we can always use people who are technologically inclined, people who want to write code, people who want to test code, or just have ideas, people want to get involved, this is one way you can get involved. Like, say hi, I’m doing some projects, you wanna get involved, you can hit me up and work on some projects with me. Alternatively, there are many other—how do I switch to the slides?

Cory Massimino: There’s an option in the menu….

Rebecca Crane: There we go. So there’s lots of other organizations of various sizes and distributions that you can look up. Here’s a bunch of websites. Black and Pink [BlackAndPink.org] is a prison abolitionist organization that works specifically with LGBTQ prisoners and they have a prison abolition sort of, like, bent and also they just do prisoner support. Critical Resistance [criticalresistance.org] is also just a broad-based prison abolition organization. They’re more based on the coasts, but they’re always looking for people who want to start chapters in their town. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence [incite-national.org] is a group of women of color who have a just, kind of, anti-carceral, anti-violence, and they’ve got some good anthologies, they’ve done a lot of writing. The Anarchist Black Cross [abcf.net], of course, they do prisoner support for people who they consider to be political prisoners. And then there’s some discussion about whether all prisoners are considered to be political prisoners. No One Is Illegal [NoOneIsIllegal.org], which ties into the talk that we’re going to see later today [on Open Borders]. And the Sylvia Rivera Law Project [SRLP.org], as Nathan mentioned, is Dean Spade’s organization. They mostly work on supporting transgender, gender non-conforming prisoners and they also have a prison abolition base. And then just a shout out to, ’cause I know there’s some other people from New Mexico here, Free Spook [FreeSpook.org] is a little prison abolition that’s based out of Albuquerque that’s doing just some really, really, like, hands-on work. They have a specific person they’re trying to get a retrial for and they’re just trying to do education about prison abolition and the prison system and solitary confinement specifically in New Mexico area. The picture I showed earlier of the little ofrenda [English: offering/altar] that was something that they put together for the Day of the Dead celebration and they just do some outreach and education. So if you’re in Albuquerque or anywhere in New Mexico and you want to get involved, look at their website.

And that’s about it. Thanks very much. Feel free to drop me an email [at foxtale@riseup.net with PGP key ID: 7E0021BA] if you want to contact me or if there’s anything you want more information about.

Audience: [applause]

The solution to “these are bad rules” is not more rules, it is less rules.

By the late 20th century, Graeber argues, citizens in the great free society of the Unites States had come to spend “ever more hours struggling with phone trees and web interfaces, while the less fortunate spent ever more hours of their day trying to jump through the increasingly elaborate hoops required to gain access to dwindling social services.” Bureaucracy dominates our lives and is, in fact, a defining feature of how the United States (and some European states) project power domestically and across the world.

The proposition that the United States is a nation of bureaucrats grates on anti-government ideals of individualism and self-reliance, Graeber notes. Bureaucrats are supposed to be the antithesis of true Americans. After civil servants died in the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton was forced to point out that bureaucrats are “people … just like most of you.” Our reliance on bureaucracy also clashes with a free-market ideology that defines bureaucracy as government red tape. One of President Ronald Reagan’s famous quips was, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

But the complete interdependence of the U.S. military and the defense industry is a forceful example of how corporations actually love bureaucratic rules that work in their favor. The true definition of the corporate rallying cry in favor of “deregulation” is in fact “changing the regulatory structure in ways that I like,” Graeber writes.

Accompanying the expansion of bureaucracy is an expansion of the use of force, or at least the threat of it, into parts of life that were not previously administered. We might think of police as principally protecting us from violent crime, solving murders and muggings and rapes, but they are mainly occupied in enforcing disputes over property and non-violent behaviors. “Bureaucrats with guns,” as Graeber puts it. He notes that the United States became a world power as it built up international administrative and enforcement bodies like the United Nations, the World Bank, NATO, and the World Trade Organization; global bureaucrats with mandates in addition to guns.

“The legal order, and hence the zones where state violence is the ultimate enforcer of the rules, has expanded to define and regulate almost every possible aspect of human activity,” Graeber writes.

The “utopia of rules” in the title of the book is twofold. In their ideal form, rules exist to control bad behavior. Even young children create rules for their games because they recognize that play, creativity, and joy can be destructive and arbitrary. Societies create rules to stop the worst inclinations of the mob.

Behind the utopia of rules is a belief in fairness — that the rules are the same for everyone. This, Graeber argues, is predicated on the idea that the system is perfect. He asks, “Is this not what we always say of utopians: that they have a naïve faith in the perfectibility of human nature and refuse to deal with humans as they actually are?”

The problem is that those in power can always interpret or change the rules to their benefit.


Bureaucratic systems aspire to be regarded as “neutral social technologies,” Graeber notes, just a means to an end. But he doesn’t believe bureaucracy is actually neutral: he thinks it stymies creativity and, under the cover of neutrality, preserves the advantages of the powerful by dominating the weak. He’s onto something. As we have seen with drone strikes, spying by the National Security Agency, and detainee torture by the CIA, laws and rules are not always obeyed, and they can be designed or twisted to authorize horrendous things.

via David Graeber’s ‘Utopia of Rules’ and Drone Warfare

See also:

“Bitcoin can’t lead on its own to a disintermediated society,” and other uncomfortable truths about BitCoin

We live in an epoch of techno-utopianism with a strong drive for techno-cracy. The former means that many believe that technology alone determines certain outcomes, while the latter believes it is a good thing that flawed human processes are replaced by ‘clean’ technological processes. Both attitudes are very dangerous.

First, distributed technologies do not necessarily lead to distributed outcomes. We have seen this historically with the effect of the invention of printing, which led to a democratisation of knowledge and literacy, but also in time replaced the local autonomy of free medieval cities with much stronger and controlling nation-states, i.e. more political centralization, not less. Networks which have no counter-measures to maintain equality inevitably lead in time to a new concentration of resources. Hence, in Amazon and iTunes, the so-called long tail of culture consumption predicted by Chris Anderson is no longer operative, and in p2p social lending, 80% of loans are provided by big bangs and institutions, the very forces the technology was supposed to disintermediate.

Again and again, we see that the potential disintermediation of power, which may affect established powers, creates new intermediaries, such as the platform monopolies. Technologies are indeed, used by social forces, who inflect technologies for their own needs. The inequality of bitcoin ownership will inevitably further affect the structures that make bitcoin operational, leading to new kinds of monopolies. Technologies are always infused with human values, no programming or infrastructure is truly neutral in that respect.

Michel Bauwens’s “A political evaluation of BitCoin” sums up some of the most overlooked problems with cryptocurrency. A short read (~5 minutes) and very worth the time.

See also: