 Willkommen, guten Morgen in der Ka... Guten Morgen und willkommen auf der Kaoszone, TV, auf Tages 3. Willkommen auf den Gespräch mit gegen oder über Politik, eine Reflexion auf den paradoxischen Konzept der Politik, verwendet in Agniakism, von Jonathan Eibisch. Dieser Gespräch ist in Englisch für euch beendet und Katzenzunge. Bitte benutze den Hashtag rc3chaoszone für Feedback über den Gespräch. Und jede Feedback über die Translation ist veröffentlichbar. Bitte benutze den Hashtag c3lingo. Ich hoffe, dass ihr den Gespräch genutzt. Hallo schön, dass ihr da seid. Hallo, schön, dass ihr hier seht. Mit gegen oder über Politik, eine Reflexion auf den paradoxischen Konzept der Politik, verwendet in Agniakism. Okay, ich hoffe, dass ihr etwas Interessantes findet und habt Spaß. Vielen Dank zu Kaosone in Halle, der es möglich gemacht hat, dass wir diesen Film oder kleinen Film zeigen können. Mein Name ist Jonathan und ich bin your guide. Und alles andere kann auf meinem Blog paradox-a gefunden werden. So, was werden wir darüber reden? Es ist nur ein irritierender Moment, und ich denke, dass es auch andere Leute gibt. So, da war etwas zu tun, dass es gleichzeitig passiert. Also, es gibt Kritik von Politik und simultaneously, auf der anderen Seite, es gibt mehr Politik und mehr Praxis von radikaler Politik. Ich habe das gesehen und habe gedacht, das ist irritierend. Wie kann es sein, mehr Leute sind politisch in Anakism. Und auf der anderen Seite, sie wollen keine Politik. Ich denke, es ist vielleicht so, dass Politik gut ist. Politik ist schlecht, Anakie ist gut. Also, du gehst irgendwo, und es gibt nicht genug Raum auf der Welt. Also, die Message muss kurz sein. Und dann, die Leute kommen, und du hast eine Ahnung. Aber ist es so einfach, dass Politik schlecht ist, Anakie ist gut? Vielleicht, aber auf der anderen Seite, es zeigt, dass in Anakie, es Kritik ist, was Politik ist. Also, das ist ein Beginn, eine Steppingstone für was ich reden möchte. Was ist Anakie? Was denken Anakisten, wenn sie über Politik sprechen? Und mit dieser Irritation, über diese Internologik, ich möchte beginnen. Also, was ist da heute, wo wir sehen, es ist nicht so einfach, um Politik zu tun, wenn du anakistisch, anakistisch inklusive bist. Also, ich möchte beginnen, mit ein paar Quotes, um die Diskomfort mit Politik zu tun. Dann die eigentliche Arbeit. Ich hoffe, du magst es. Und natürlich die Frage, was ist Politik in Anakie? Oder in Anakisten? Und natürlich, es gibt mehrere Opinien. Ich gebe nur eine. Und du kannst sehen, ob du das tun kannst. Und dann können wir natürlich diskutieren. Und die Frage, vielleicht, ob Politik nicht so schön ist, als wir manchmal denken, sind es Alternativen? Was ist etwas, wie Antipolitik? Und das ist nur ein Wort für jetzt. Das ist etwas, was Politik nicht ist. Aber was ist es? Was Parteien der Politik sind Parteien der anakistischen Gedanken? Und das schauen wir später. Okay. Ich hoffe, du kannst folgen. Hallo. Let's begin. Und damit geht es los. Und das ist, wie wir beginnen mit der Irritation über Politik. Ich habe dir bereits gesagt, dass in Anakie es um Kritik und Kritik Parteien und politischen Institutionen. Aber natürlich gibt es mehr. Es geht um die politische Logik, die wir finden in Grasrout-Movements und auch in Social-Movements. Es ist interessant. Wie gesagt, ich arbeite mit Anakistischen Theorie. Ich arbeite mit Texten und Gedanken. Aber es wäre nicht so interessant und nicht so relevant, wenn es nicht um wirklich konkrete Dinge war, die mich persönlich auch effekten und irritieren. Ich habe für dich 8 Beispielen gebracht, mit einer solchen Irritation über die politische Logik, in einer Social-Movement, und ich glaube, das ist ein typischer Beispiel. Man kann sehen, dass es relevant ist für die Menschen, die in den eminzipativen Social-Movements sind. 8 Beispielen. Das erste. Es ist eine Demonstration, eine klassische one, in Chemnitz, in der sie protestieren, eine Jäle, eine Frauenjäle, und sie beide haben eine feministische Message mit der traditionellen one gegen die Prisons. Und auf der Proteste haben wir die beiden gefunden. Also eine Utopie von einer Gesellschaft ohne Prisons. Dass es möglich ist, dass wir in einer Gesellschaft leben, die Prisons nicht brauchen. Und das ist ein ethischer Demand. Weil man kann sagen, wenn man in einer Präsentation ist, dann steht überhaupt so was wie und dann also ist es connecter zu der Frage was die kriminelle Aktivität ist. In der ersten Stelle. Und also die Prisons-People das ist eine ethische, kritische Statement. Beides ist beyond politische Logik, die auch immer wieder immer wieder. So, sie haben auch einen minimalen Wagen hinter den Bars. So, die Leute, die dort arbeiten, müssen sie leben. Und auch eine Reise zu protesten, also können sie hinter den Bars organisieren. Natürlich in Prisons, die Prisons-Walz nicht so, aber es ist ein sehr basic Demand. Das heißt, das ist eine Irritation. So, du willst die Situation in Prisons Improven. Und das zweite Beispiel ist ziemlich simpel. Es ist ein Protest in Annaberg, das Protest gegen so-called March for Life das existiert in Berlin in Stuttgart und in Pateriak. Und das ist ein Protest gegen pro-life people. Und wir sehen es in Chancelike und also gegen Pateriak Patriarchic Logik. Also, es ist nicht Also Politik, in diesem Sinne auch eine Tastung von Patriarchik, und das ist genug für es zu kritisieren auf einem fundamentalen Level, aber auf der anderen Seite der feministischen Bedeutung ist es nicht so, dass man die Fortschritte legal machen kann, die by the way es war illegal für 150 Jahre, das ist ein sehr großer Skandal, weil es eine Bedeutung auf Selbstdetermination ist. Das ist eine sehr politische Bedeutung, und das ist auch in Konflikt mit einer sehr fundamentalen Kritik des Staates total, aber es ist mehr. Ein sehr klassischer Beispiel auch, würde ich sagen, ist dass es eine Bedeutung auf Selbstdetermination ist, z.B. mit der Bewegung Ende Gelände, wo die Leute wirklich auf die Schiene untersetzen, also die Leute blocken Trains, weil Kohl da ist. Und sie blocken die Trains, um es klar zu machen, dass wir das nicht wollen, wir wollen das nicht, wir wollen das brown coal Infrastruktur stoppen, um auch zu den Unternehmen zu verabschieden. Aber ist es das Objekt? Just imagine, the blockage is there, there is one to 200 people, and then the police comes, as it usually does towards the evening, and the people on the tracks then think, well maybe we should leave, or shouldn't we, because maybe the press was already there, it seemed very successful day, and some would say, yeah, we did our part, we made a good blockage, we can leave now. This is what we wanted, we have a good media echo, we made our statement, but others would say, well that's not enough, I'm not here for the media, I want to do something, I want to stop this power plant, I want to block it, to cause as much damage to the company as possible, and to directly do something, and the media doesn't do anything for me. And it's not about the last one being more radical, or more anarchist, but these things happen, and here is two logical trends of thought that are in conflict, so the direct interaction and the other one that's just wanting to do a statement, how they decide in the moment, that always depends on the people, I'm not judging, that that's just the way it is, that's just something I wanted to show, and these two logical threads are quite intertwined, and then I also saw it in an action camp, where there was a debate around what is political, so there were people who really worked on the infrastructure of the camp, cooking, setting up tents, tidying up, also organizing the tent itself, or the camp itself, and they saw that as their job, and just set something up, and then there were action focused people, very communistically oriented, and they just came there for one or two days for the big action day, and they did their action, and then there was a fight, so the alternative people who set up the infrastructure were angry that the others were not contributing anything, they were just using it, yeah, but you hippies, you're just building a camp, but that's not what it's about, so we can see that there is a little, we can see a fight, what is the political, is it already setting up an alternative camp, or just doing the big announced action of campaign? A fifth example would be the so-called Gretchenfrage of using violence, so the question of your core beliefs, so of course there are sometimes escalations, but afterwards, there is a debate usually, what does it good for? In this case it's not about is the violence, can it be allowed, can it be justified, but how do people interpret what's happening there, for example anarchists are arguing, I don't have to share it, I don't have to like that there was violence, but we don't want to accept that political logic, what was allowed, what is justified, we are saying that people can decide themselves, so we are not judging what is good and what isn't, we don't want to accept this argument at all, so this is just an act of self expression by the people, and that doesn't matter if we like it or not, but politically strategically this would be wrong, so you shouldn't accept by being provoked into setting something on fire, because that doesn't help your cause and it discredits your cause, and so strategically following the political logic, this would be wrong, but of course we see politics and something else, this self-determined acting that is in contrast to politics or is being set in contrast to politics, I have more examples, one is very typical I think, especially in self-organized leftist groups, there is the fight between squad politics and personal improvement, so there was this movement that grew and did a few protests, it was quite successful and it grew more people, but then there was this fight that started, and now the question, what's next, and a few people, one of those guys, guys, they said we should do this and we should do, write another pamphlet and so they said we have to do this and this and they try to determine what should be done politically, because that's what worked, but others said well this is squad politics, you are just saying what has to be done, because that is apparently the right thing politically, but we want to develop ourselves, we want to find out how are we involved in politics and how are we changing our relationships and how are we intertwined with command and control and authority and that's a conflict and I don't want to say what is right or wrong, because I can see both sides, but also this fight seems to be very typical, so there are two worlds colliding in this fight and of course the old problem of choice or of elections, so in anarchistically inspired circles it's not that certain that elections are just I just declined or disliked, but some say well sometimes it makes sense, but also they just don't want to take active part in elections, so especially in such unions they don't think it's their job to tell people to go to vote and or to vote for something specific, they leave it up to their Members to make up their minds where they are positioned and they also say this political terrain is not theirs, but they want to lead on the economical field and that's what's important to them, so this is the contrast, politics is contrasted to Economics and of course finally and nice that you listen for so long if satire becomes real, so satire parties that actually enter parliament, for example the party in Germany, they have a lot of fun and they also paradise or satirize politics and you could say they have a lot of anti-politics because they take it but then they use satire to morph it, but what people, if people are elected into parliaments, can they continue this? Can they stay or remain anti-politics or do they just become part of the system and this happened here in Leipzig where two people from the party were elected to the city parliament and they had exactly that question, do we do politics or don't we and what do we see as politics, so if satire becomes real or serious this also shows the friction in the political logic, so i have this scheme prepared, i showed it before, so if we say this is politics then there also has to be the other in the theory, something that is created that we exclude, so Newman who developed this said that anti-politics is in utopia and in sorry i missed the second one and that's something that's very strong in anarchy, so on the political side i could say the strategic and the programmatic, that's the political things that are always questioned in anarchy, so after the theory of Newman there is a paradox on that's the autonomous politics, so this is also where the problem comes from i think, but i go further than this scheme, so antipolitics would be utopia and ethics and i'm saying there is a wing within emancipatory movement, so it's not just some people and a thought but i have very concrete things in mind and also i'm not like other post-anarchists that i say i don't accept another society, i think another society is possible, so i would call it libertarian socialism, but of course anarchists doubt that as well, but we have to start by saying yes we want another society with another quality and i would say that in difference to Newman and what i showed you now is something that's not just abstract, it's also based on experience, practical experience and connected to emancipatory movements and it's not just an academical ivory tower concept, it's for the people and hopefully more than just some anarchistical theories out there okay now let's move on so what is the uncomfortableness of politics in radical socialism what is the uneasiness this is what this part is about now so the point is here that anarchism arises when the question came up if socialism should politicize itself as a grassroots movement it should become a political movement so towards the end of the 19th century this question came up in the socialist movement should we take part in politics should we found parties should we try to have an impact on the state and some would vote against this against the state as a form of a centralization of authoritarian rule and this politicization of social movements was denied instead they want to stay in their traditional forms of organization federalism autonomy and different base groups which are connected so the international labor association then excluded the anti-authoritarian in 1872 they started their own organization at an authoritarian international movement the so-called pact of Saint-Gimnier which has an anniversary next year and there's a declaration in this pact we declare that the destruction of every political power is the first duty of the proletariat second every organization of the so-called provisional and revolutionary political power to bring about this destruction is just one floor more and can be just as dangerous for the proletariat as all existing governments and third that the refusal of compromises for the social revolution of all countries has to be brought about beyond all bourgeois politics so this is a foundation document of socialist movement and it says we deny the political logic and power so not only the state but everything that is beyond that so it clearly says that the political power needs to be destroyed here i mean you can't really say that these are the really original true anarchists they had a certain concept and we can't really transfer that to the current situation but it's interesting that there's this clear denial as part of this foundational document and this experience is being repeated so the second international which was founded afterwards anarchists were excluded and they started anarcho-syndicalist labor unions in many countries following the exclusion of their own country and again when there was a red labor union international in moscow but the whole thing was transferred to the russian state the sssr the 1922 where it happened again that the anarchists said they don't want to take part in this political logic so so anarchism then starts when this political principle is being actively refused so these are some of the historical experiences another problem that anarchists have with politics is the embodiment in the state of politics so politics gained certain autonomy in modern times so these are the questions that are coming up again today in social movements of course there's politics outside of the state when we gather demonstrations occupations in groups whatever politics happens outside of the state structures but the problem is that politics has assigned to the state and is taken over by the state and we can see this in many movements so for instance the cst christopher street day which is being taken over by a neoliberal establishment in recent years more and more so there are different approaches different opinions of course but this shows very clearly and why anarchists have a problem does not the topic itself but the changes to the form of such a movement so the whole topic of queer and gdbti and anarchism is directed against the principle of the state the principle of the authoritarian centralized hierarchical principle which wants to take over everything and subsidize everything there contrast to this are concepts of self-government communes relationships networks so a group might say that we do reject the state structures but we meet every Tuesday in our group which shows again this a field of tension apparently the politics of the state are very different from the politics in this group so there seems to be quite a contrast and this leads to the question what kind of politics is embodied in the politics of this group outside of the state and this again shows the problem of assigning a concept of politics to the state or other structures so there's a question um what kind of discussions to have there's not one single correct way but anarchists stand up to create their own thing and this is quite central to the concept so the third element is so-called umpolitik für Trostenheit so being fed up with politics so for instance there might be elections and many people didn't go to vote and a journalist might ask or put it in a scientist what's going on is this still a democracy um well people are fed up with politics oh yes people say yeah okay but what's going on here people don't feel like they're being understood and you need to explain more to them making more approachable and eventually they will understand but the point is that not anarchism creates this disenchantment with politics but these are parties which try to establish politics as an autonomous sphere which is not fully assigned to the state not fully assigned to the society there's also a technocracy which very much undermines the political structures so the principle that capitalism undermines democratic structures and is also being fought by fascist movements so this is about an erosion an opening of politics like a sponge in liberal democracy and these contradictions come about in liberal democracy and just lead to this frustration which is termed as disenchantment with politics so this is not brought about by anarchists but they connected they highlight these contradictions which come up in the political structures that we have today and last point which is the argument by anarchists why it makes sense to be critical and to be wary of politics there's so many other things that we can do instead of politics so for instance when you think about there are self-organized alternative leftist examples for example direct support of refugees might not be a political act because you support these people directly they had to leave the countries they need to have or for instance autonomous centers where people try to create something that is self-directed then we have culture and subculture think about punk rock or hardcore scene things like that where a lot of change has been brought about on this cultural track of course this has been taken over again by capitalism but changes have happened and this means that people who had radical views they wanted to do something differently and create a counter model and of course there are different forms of self-organization so if people in the neighborhood help each other is this a form of politics or is this necessarily politics and when does it start to become politics maybe it's also something different so anarchists are wary of politics and often politics appears to be boring, suspect, it takes a lot of time and also prevents initiative it is quite bureaucratic and hierarchical it's not authentic it seems to be running over the individual it doesn't really want to respect the individual that much so i mean the other question is if it's a simplicity if you can just turn around say well screw politics then but the difference between a political or unpolitical anarchism anti-political by questioning the political structures und despite all the wariness there's reference to politics and politics are also being practiced we'll hear more about that in a moment okay now we come to the slower and a bit more boring part of my work so that's a lot of work with source texts of anarchism and there's a lot of anti-political messages i read a bit of it so you know what i'm talking about for example what is called politics that is comparably on the surface and unhuman so i that i never noticed that it even affects me or as far as politics is based on an ideological construct it can't just stop with it or surpass it logic and naivety are at the fundament of politics and that's where it's trapped lies or we are not allowed or we cannot have shepherds if if you don't want to be sheep you can't have government if you don't want slave away with governments and those ambitions away with those scam artists and they play with the words freedom brotherhood just to be lost again or then there was about the socialistic state of the people socialistic debates were not are not getting better until anarchistic thoughts entered the debate then you then it showed that we were not we don't have to do something clever and opportunistic and for the future but we have to stop politics at all it's impossible to distinguish the fight of the unions and the acceptance and the Participation of the sad business of politics except then to mix up the two and then lastly Emma Goldman and it's about women suffrage as well i don't think that women will make politics worse but also i don't think they can improve it so why insist on such a law if the woman cannot improve on what men did on the mistakes of men the history of this shows that nothing was achieved that couldn't have been achieved easier and better and more long term so you see immediately those quotes they showed that there are these poetical messages of course it's historical we can't put it compared to today one to one because meanings of words change but of course it's interesting to talk about a big word like politics because it's not just about the word but also about the image that it conjures with us and what's behind it and to bring a text that's older than 100 years into today isn't that simple but it's interesting it's fascinating so they are really um ignoring politics they are not saying let's improve politics more democracy or make it more direct but they say no no politics so a complete denial and refusal also about the logics of politics and it's very interesting to work with this and it shows that there is an element of anarchy and anarchism that it worries about politics and doesn't like it there is as i showed a few anarchistical problems with doing politics and that leads to the question what the fuck is politics like with many of those big words freedom freedom freedom security all of those it's connected to a lot of feelings it's a container word and we can put in a lot of content into it and that's also the problem because we always act as if it was totally clear but it isn't so what i'm doing here working with the word it's very interesting indeed because it's about working with the words and filling it with your own content and finding how we can act in a society that we live in and also change it to fight about words is partially worth it because people use different words but we can use them to communicate and then it's interesting what lies behind it so for example there's people who say that was the state does is not politics it's just administration the political is what we do when we connect on the street when we solve our own problems so that's a very radical direct association but what i'm talking about here is is i'm it's not about doing real or finally again politics but to reach other conclusions so it's a definite politics definition it's not more correct than others it's just one that takes on the debate from a certain direction and i would say politics is the is the negotiation of interests and those participating in the in the negotiation have a very different in the power resources and the decisions that are made politically that can include consensus but they are not based on equal footing so there are hierarchies and there is force involved and also people it affects people who are not taking part in the negotiations so we could say politics is for setting up a frame and to keep up a frame for acting within a society so a classical society like patriarchy and also a state logic is kept up by this and politics does compromises also with less privileged people but if we want something entirely different like an egalitarian society then we also have to think about what does politics involve but does question what is a form how people can organize so how can they solve their issues and then there is the principle of decentralized autonomous communities and a federal system between them so people would still solve their problems but in a different way than today but how does this turn into a government and we have to get more data on this but interesting at this point is that this question is just started by critiquing what classical politics involves so politics is is collected or engrossed by this state and we have to undo that and that means to change the how our society behaves on a very fundamental level but the state cannot just exist as the institutions of the state but also as the principle so the anarchists also want that this principle is translated into other areas of the society and it's in direct contrast with self-determination and self-organization so i'm using a very certain meaning of the word politics it could be called governmental so related to a government it's in question it's being questioned if politics creates a good order it's conflict oriented so there are fights it's historicizing so it doesn't always mean the same but it's an expression of a certain society and it's ultra realistic that's what i called it so it assumes that there are fights about power that we have to accept this that's a part of politics but since the realism that's in there it's taken serious but and it's also taking more serious than it maybe is so it's ultra realistic there are other meanings of the word of course but this meaning this definition is to create a certain view on politics so there is this denial and refusal of politics and i say there is this search for something else in a society that is organized differently that is complex how do we get out so what are anti-political fix points and i also organized it into the scheme so there is this state politic in the middle and there are other spheres of society other options of how we could act so for example there is the utopia ethics and i said something about that earlier but there's also the sphere of the individual the social society economy and society so these are all attempts to go away from the politics at the self-determined and how the individual can assign itself to the political sphere for instance there are spheres like neighborhoods which are different from administrative politics and if we look at society as contrast to the state to put it shortly i mean the anarchism thinks there's a level of society which goes beyond the state and also looking at economics it says that there's also structures domination and power for instance there are economical struggles and society consists of lots of communal projects alternative projects which try to realize different forms living together so we can say that the anarchist movement tries to escape from this political sphere but why does politics come back into it then again why is that the case this is mostly about trying to prevent the different practices to become a means of their own so for instance self-determination and individualism can become a problem if people are only taking care of themselves or for instance in the social sphere so for instance certain projects could just become a compensation for poverty at large or be limited to certain people also society in itself is not free of politics we can't just keep it out also in the economics sphere there are approaches which say they don't want to do anything with politics but this leads to a vacuum so for instance proletarians in an autonomous labor union there are contradictions and different opinions that need to be negotiated and finally simply focusing on labor politics this can also lead that political parties are trying to take this over and dominate it because they don't want to deal with that in the first place also in society there are maybe many communal projects which started out trying to create something different but become some kind of alternative to live nicely but without having this ambition to create something larger than that same in the area of culture which might remain culture only for itself and does not question society at large and the point is to bring in politics and question politics so politics comes back in the back door and this leads to this irritating simultaneousness of criticizing politics at the same time refusing politics the way it is so this is not about creating a different politics politics does remain a politics but in anarchism the answer can be that sometimes we have to take part in this game if for certain reasons this might make sense but for other reasons we will approach this in a very different manner all this theoretical explanation which i've just presented here should explain that it actually does make sense to have this paradox because when you look at it more closely it turns out that this paradoxical situation is not a limit in anarchism itself but it is in fact to find an answer to the paradoxical society that we live in so we need to accept that politics is a form of condition of power but sometimes you also have to take part in politics but in a different way so the idea in anarchist politics is to move in these paradoxical situations but not just reproduce them but rather to try and transform these condition conditions under which politics is being practiced does make sense and i think it explains the narrative which i presented at the start and helps us to understand it better we understand better why there are these simultaneousnesses these contradictions and an emancipatory social movements who are always presented with these kind of questions who do we refer to how do we deal with this political question and how we can bring it about so in anarchism we try to strive for autonomy which means escaping the conditions of power and the political logic and to realize something different which can take its place so just striving for autonomy is always a process and will never be finished so in anarchism there are different strategies which are connecting to these different entire political points of reference that i mentioned before so for instance individualism communism, communitarianism, mutualism, syndicalism or the communitarian syndicalism these are different attempts to strive for autonomy which sometimes also get mixed up and this seems to be the common denominator in this pluralistic approaches of anarchism so self-determination and autonomy are connected with the different movements which you can see here in this schema and i think this says a lot about the schema, the nature of anarchism yeah now we're here nice that you followed me so far for the end i just want to summarize it thesis like what i was working on because a lot of things i were speaking about are part of my dissertation so what were we talking about first the critics of and ignoring of politics is a very important starting point for anarchy or refusal not ignoring second politics is always connected to the state either from the beginning or it becomes engrossed by it there might maybe you might see this differently but there is people are just illusioned often third after the political sphere there are other social spheres where emancipatory acting occurs and alternatives can be created in anarchy there is the individual the social the society economy and the community as anti point to politics and as a connection point for anti politics fourth paradoxically in anarchism there's also politics occurs so it just comes in through a back door it serves for bringing the alternative practices that were developed into the so libertarian social society it has the function to it has the the goal that alternative practices can be given up instead of becoming politics themselves with a principal critique of politics is important to be able to develop radical positions at all so to prove or improve on the basis of what i said it doesn't mean that what i said what i told you is just the truth but what i tried is to provide a certain perspective on the whole thing and i hope that i could do that and that you could follow me basically you have your own thoughts how do you act in society what do you want to do maybe you start thinking well what is politics for me make a mind man write down some associations and then write down well where my images come from is that really my thought is that my imagination and how does it work with politics of state or of parties or also of political groups so what is something that's really different and i would say yes let's say politics is still a problem but it's also as necessary as cleaning up the dishes nobody likes doing it but it has to be done and just letting other people do it is not a solution but we have to remain critical and that's what anarchy is all about to create something different but we will discover a lot of things with this anti politics if we think about are there other options yeah we will find other practices and there's also a way of explaining how anarchy works an interesting social um yeah thing and i wanted to just show a small window into my work you can also contact me i have a block it's called paradox minus eight dot de you can also talk to me if you want me to have a talk or something but if you have too much money you can also contact me and give me money because my dissertation i want to publish it and i still need money for that i can't do it directly please write an email to me and if you want to support that feel free to do so i would be happy but also thanks to chaos own halle so that we could turn this into a reality and also my cameraman and helper and yeah see you soon to make your own thoughts and thank you also for your attention from the translation booth you heard the talk with against or beyond politics a reflection on the paradoxical concept of politics used by anarchism or in anarchism by jonathan abish thanks for this nice talk back to the studio we have a few questions for the speaker so start with the first one to the first point with the prisons there is a protest against it but is there also ideas how to still exclude people from society so about the prisons there are people protesting prisons but are there other solutions of how to exclude people from society other way that's a very good question so i just picked it up as an example to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of the time of politics i mean i'm not an expert but there are different approaches so if you think about sweden and no wait there are different progressive approaches for instance there are prison islands where people are not locked up all the time but they try to live there in a self-administered manner but this is just some trivial cases such struggling without a ticket on public transport why do people go to prison for that but regarding forms of violence and crime which won't disappear this might be a model how to deal with that but i have to admit there are many other possibilities i think and the question needs to be asked what are the origins of crime and violence and my idea would be to have a kind of ban and this is also a question among anarchists of course where do you see the difference between anarchism and liberalism yeah i mean there are different approaches of course so in different political camps liberalism stands on a different grounds than anarchism when you look at this from a political theoretical perspective the question is um how to define state not only the institution as such so the institution of the state as a hierarchical authoritarian patriarchal system but you need a central instance of control which regulates society but on the other hand when you look at the history of ideas there are influences from liberalism or socialism affecting anarchism and i can't really draw a clear line there so the focus on the individual and anarchism which is always thought as being connected to other people whereas in liberalism there's a stronger focus on individuals as being separate from others so an economic from a economic perspective a competition has seen it's a good thing in liberalism but in anarchism not so much at a cooperation is being construct as a superior okay another thing don't you see the danger to with demands to the state to legitimize it wouldn't demands have to be done to people that's a very good question of course which we can discuss more um i would like to step back and i look at this that in a radical or leftist organization demands are often being brought forward but it's it's not clear who are the people that are demanding and if institutions don't act themselves who is acting it's all very unclear the idea is to take it up yourselves and to approach people directly which is probably what the question was aiming at so to appeal directly to people to bring those changes about and it's also about helping those people provide them with support and you need very transparent models so this is always yeah difference between suggesting something directly without demanding it also a controversial question why are attentates against non-state entities not fancy anymore are people too lazy now yeah thank you for the question um so if i talk about arochism i have to answer questions like this but i think the talk was about something else so i don't need to justify anything but i can answer the question nevertheless so of course there's something to do that historically there was a phase when anarchists or people that were termed anarchists were doing terrorist act against heads of state at the start of the 20th century and what we see today as the surveillance state has been created as a response to that partly so the surveillance today we see which is quite advanced so i mean we can of course talk about if this makes sense those terrorist acts um but the question is if it makes sense to attack individuals because this is not really the nature of the forms of domination that we see today i mean there are of course ethical reasons so i wouldn't blame individuals but you also need to ask maybe more than in other movements the question of responsibility so which are the privileged classes that profit from the the current state of affairs um but this is of course not necessarily to a terrorist act and maybe please a short answer what concrete act hints for acting are you saying inactive but interested people so what should they do if they want to get involved politically so what what should you do if you're not engaged currently yeah um so as always i mean this is my approach and i hope this came across there are many different possibilities there are the emancipatory social movements for instance feminism climate justice and other forms of social struggles so these movements exist in many different places i mean that's all what we have i think these are the right people with the right ideas i don't view this in a negative way me personally i like to bank on the power of emancipatory movements to create a different society bottom up a lot of things are happening there so have a look what you find interesting which topics you find appealing get together and groups try to bring together the different topics and of course anarchists are suggesting that such a social movement needs to be autonomous from institutions of the states such as political parties so these are the possibilities of self organized movements and especially here in germ speaking area we can really look to other countries and learn from them personally i would bank on this so we should come away from the thought that we should be oriented towards the state and laws and those institutions but in kontrast we can create alternatives ourselves with many people together okay thank you very much could you repeat the address of your blog show the url is paradox-a.de you can have a look at it and contact me thanks a lot for having me otherwise please use the rocket chat or the hashtag rc3 chaos zone and i think we can talk a lot there last word yeah tonight there will be another talk by me talk about future more of telling yeah thank you and we give over to potstown