Anarchist Geographies and Revolutionary Strategies

7/31/2019 Anarchist Geographies and Revolutionary Strategies

1/10

Afterword

Anarchist Geographies and

Revolutionary StrategiesUri Gordon

The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Kibbutz Ketura, D.N. Hevel Eilot 88840, Israel;[email protected]

These are certainly fruitful times for anarchist intellectual publishing. Reading

through the articles in this special issue of Antipode, I was impressed by the

diversity and creativity of efforts to apply anti-authoritarian perspectives to the

geographical discipline, whose notorious breadth of application (everything is

spatial) seems to offer unlimited possibilities for new avenues of research. I also

began thinking about two related issues that seem to run across much of what

appears in the preceding pages. The first concerns the anarchademic enterprise

itself, and its possible contribution to the development of anarchist politics. The

second concerns a more specific problematic, which accompanies the integration of

poststructuralist insights into our understanding of anarchism, and the concomitant

celebration of prefigurative politics in the present tense. What connects the two is

the question of revolutionary strategies. Does the postanarchist shift of perspective

require us to abandon strategy as a valid category for our struggles? If not, howare strategies supposed to emerge as a conscious artefact of such a decentralized

and swarming movement? What is the role of anarchist intellectual labour in such

an emergence? Finally, what considerationshowever preliminary and open to

debatecan be presented as its starting point, and what might a geographical

perspective contribute to their elaboration?

In what follows, I begin with some thoughts on the pitfalls of anarchist intellectual

labour becoming institutionalized in the academy. I then turn to look at the

question of revolutionary strategies, a concept that I fear may have fallen victim

to a careless misunderstanding of postanarchist insights. Finally, I reiterate a fewbasic coordinates, which I believe should at least be considered when projecting

ourselves into the future of social struggles.

Death by Peer Review?The anarchademic enterprise, to use the terms suggested by Anthony Ince (2012)

in this issue, distinctly involves its own process of territorialization. As anarchist

academics squat various compartments of the intellectual establishment, we

demarcate discursive space, marking turf through acts of bordering which separate

ours from other cross-disciplinary perspectivesperhaps most prominently from

Marxism, but also from any explicitly or implicitly statist variations of feminism,

anti-racism, postcolonial studies, queer theory, and so on. This process is almost

always noticeable alongside any substantive discussion of theories and case studies.

AntipodeVol. 00 No. 0 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 110 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01036.xC 2012 The Author. Antipode C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.


2/10

2 Antipode

On the more theoretical end of the enterprise, the postanarchist project has involved

its own explicit act of bordering, this time between itself and the allegedly modernist

and humanist tenets of the anarchist tradition (Newman 2001; but see Jun 2011).

Being reflexive about the power-play we are engaging in within the professional

intellectual establishment should also lead us to more troubling questions about

the point of the exercise as a whole. That intellectual satisfaction is an insufficientrationale for anarchist intellectual labour seems to me uncontroversial. Is then

the professional intellectual establishment a site of struggle in its own right?

To be sure, most of the people who write for academic journals also have the

opportunity of contact with students, whose critical thinking and openness to

radical perspectives can be encouraged (and encouraging to see). Furthermore,

as Rouhani (2012) argues in this issue, the tradition of anarchist pedagogy has

much to contribute to our efforts to make the classroom experience itself a site

of prefiguration, encouraging modes of learning that are anti-hierarchical, non-

coercive, autonomous and cooperative. Struggles in the academic workplace, in

which many of us are part-time, adjunct or otherwise precarious employees, are

another area in which we can bring our politics to bear, alongside solidarity with

students struggles over tuition fees and campus policing (Cause Commune 2012;

Various 2012). But what of the core of original intellectual labourresearching,

writing, and publishing?

While the flowering of anarchist scholarship may be thought of as an intervention

in the battle of ideas, it also runs the risk of irrelevance to wider political aims.

Consider the process of neutralization-through-academization that western Marxism

succumbed to from the 1970s onward. Is anarchism likely to go through the same

process? To put things sardonically, our best defence against co-optation is the scantinfluence that anarchist academics have on the wider movement, making us less of

an attractive target. On the one hand this derives from the nature of the anarchist

intellectual enterprise itself: unlike its Marxist counterpart, it does not espouse claims

to objectivity and scientific validity which inform, as well as divide, the rank and

file. But on the other hand, the cause may also be circumstantial: if we are not

enough of a threat to warrant co-optation, is it simply because nobody is listening?

Much has been written about the practice and ethics of engaged, militant,

or otherwise socially committed research, with the experiences of anarchist

geographers providing some of the most insightful reflections (cf AutonomousGeographies Collective 2010). The latters emphasis on the need to break down

the dichotomy between intellectual work undertaken inside and outside the

academy certainly deserves to be absorbed by all anarchademics. Yet what happens

on the other side of the process? In their introduction to the latest set of contributions

on the topic, Gillan and Pickerill (2012:137) point to the sad fact that the outputs

of much well intentioned research done with social movements remain physically

inaccessible to the participants, thus blocking the flow of reciprocity. They also note

that even if such publication is freely shared, its language, findings and timeliness

may be of limited use. But even if we make the utmost effort to keep our language

accessible and our findings timely and relevant, we should go back to asking what

exactly we mean by freely shared. In the case of research done with discreet

groups, it may be quite easy to ensure that they actually have the opportunity to

C 2012 The Author. Antipode C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.


3/10

Afterword 3

read the outputs. But in the more general sense of producing intellectual labour that

is relevant to activists, the fact that a book or journal issue can be freely accessed

onlinewhether legally or through piracydoes not mean that it will actually be

read. The format itself is prohibitive. To me, there seems to be no alternative to doing

the actual legwork and disseminating our ideas at speaking events, workshops and

facilitated discussions.The point behind the preceding thoughts, however, is that almost all

anarchademic efforts seem to begin from the standpoint of affinity with a political

community to whose struggles they seek to contribute. Whether this is done by

absorbing and refining the participants own insights, or by attaching them to

conceptual tools and theoretical frameworks with which they may not be familiar,

there seems to be a shared desire to function as agents of reflexivity for wider

anarchist circles.

But what, in turn, is this reflexivity supposed to achieve? Again, with research

involving discrete groups and struggles the dividend may be localized and specific.

But as many of the articles in this special issue indicate, the sought-after audience is

often the anarchist movement as a whole. That such an entity can even be conceived

of as an audience, that is, that it should be thought to have some common and

overarching concerns that intellectual labour can address, brings us closer to the

consideration of the question of strategy.

Yet the term strategy itself requires some further clarification. For example, the

members of the Autonomous Geographies Collective (2010:256) refer to strategic

interventions as a matter of orienting our educational and research agendas in

ways that will decisively help those on the front line of campaigns and struggles.

Yet it is not clear what qualifies such decisive help as specifically strategic. In thenext section, I would like to dedicate closer attention to this term, specifically in the

context of its apparent denigration in the postanarchist vocabulary.

Salvaging StrategyThis section constitutes a preliminary attempt to reinstate strategic thinking as a

component of anarchism following its absorption of poststructuralist insightsalbeit

not in the sense of strategic which the postanarchist framework rejects. To do this,

let me return to the source distinction elaborated by Todd May.

May categorizes political philosophies into three types: formal, strategic, andtactical. Formal political philosophy cleaves either to the pole of what ought to

be or to the pole of what is at the expense of the tension between the two (May

1994:4). Rawlss A Theory of Justice and Lukacss History and Class Consciousness are

given as examples of either option. Strategic and tactical political philosophies, on

the other hand, inhabit that tension explicitly. May (1994:7) writes that strategic

political philosophy includes an analysis of the concrete historical and social situation

not merely to realize the ethical program but also to determine what concrete

possibilities present themselves for intervention . . . the ethical program is limited and

perhaps partially determined by that situation. This characteristic, May makes clear,

is also true of tactical political philosophy. The difference between them, however, is

that strategic political philosophy also involves a unitary analysis that aims towards

a single goal. It is engaged in a project that it regards as the centre of political



4/10

4 Antipode

universe . . . all problems can be reduced to the basic one . . . a central problematic

within the purview of which all injustices can be accounted for. The works of

Lenin and Machiavelli are given as examples for this option, with the economic

base and princely political power respectively occupying the centre. However, for

tactical political philosophy as embodied in the works of poststructuralist writers

including Foucault, Deleuze and Lyotard, there is no centre within which power isto be located . . . There are many different sites from which it arises, and there is an

interplay among these (May 1994:11). While there are crucial intersections around

which power conglomerates, it does not originate in these points.

Such a view clearly demarcates postanarchism from those varieties of class struggle

anarchism that insist on the working class (however conceived) as a privileged agent

of revolutionary transformation. The latter outlook is perhaps best represented by

writers such as Schmidt and van der Walt (2009) or Price (2009: np), who asserts that

the broad anarchist tradition of class struggle anarchism overlaps with libertarian

interpretations of Marx:

the centre of its politics is class-based: supporting and rooting itself in the working class

and also in the peasantry. This has also included support for non-class based struggles

around gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, war, and ecologyall issues which

overlap with and interact with class. But it has seen the working class as having a particular

power, at least potentially, for stopping the machinery of the system and for starting it

up differently.

In contrast to this position, a postanarchist perspective would place class as

one among several intersecting regimes of domination, none of which occupy a

privileged position for intervention. The lack of a conceptual centre, as well as the

rejection of any linchpin target whose elimination could make the entire systemcollapse, is what designates postanarchism as tactical.

While I do not disagree with the substance of Mays categorization, I do want

to contest the terminology. By resting the distinction between strategic and

tactical thinking on the presence or absence of belief in a punctum archimedis for

social analysis and intervention, May recasts this distinction in terms that radically

depart from its conventional sense, the one drawn from military affairs. This is the

distinction between short-term planning intended to win a single battle, and long-

term planning, which combines individual tactical choices as well as the building

of force and infrastructures, in order to win a war. Expanding from the strictlymilitary definition but remaining within its basic logic, we may give examples of

tactical question such as which intersection to block? or which crop to plant this

season?, as opposed to strategic questions such as should summit blockades be a

priority for the movement? or how do we build a sustainable farming operation?.

Now May is of course free to elaborate the distinction on his own terms, but the

problem is that even if he does so very clearly, the conventional meaning continues

to have a residual presence in discourse and is added, willy-nilly, to discussions of

anarchist politics. Thus we may easily be led into the error of presuming that, as a

tactical outlook, anarchism in its poststructuralist reading is expected to eschew,

not only the search for a punctum archimedis and the Enlightenment-humanist

conception of the subject, but also strategy in the conventional sensethe collective

prioritization of certain forms of action and the planned combination of tactical



5/10

Afterword 5

choices, given shared empirical judgements about the historical and social situation.

This would leave us with a disjointed, ad-hoc politics that is not only embedded but

trapped in its particularity (cf Pistolero 2012).

Notice that Mays typology does not actually divide political philosophies into

three mutually exclusive categories, but only into two, with a further subdivision

in the second. Both strategic and tactical political philosophies are, in fact,strategic in the sense of inhabiting the tension between is and ought. By

subsuming the distinction between centred and decentred views of power into

the one between strategic and tactical, May inadvertently opens the way for a

misunderstanding of a tactical philosophy as one that does not reformulate but

instead abandons the question what is to be done?, in all but the most immediate

sense attached to the conventional understanding of tactics.

There is, however, no reason why a postanarchist standpoint must reject, a

priori, strategic thinking in its conventional sense. There is a difference between

arguing that there is a central or foundational locus of domination and the more

modest argument that a decentralized movement can make conscious collective

choices about where to place its energies, based on shared understandings of social

and political conditions, with all the complexity and multidimensionality that a

postanarchist perspective has to offer. I would therefore argue that strategy, in

the conventional sense of the word, also has its place within a so-called tactical

anarchist outlook that has internalized the poststructuralist critique of power.

Nor does speaking of anarchist strategy imply vanguardism. Striving for shared

priorities which pan out into particular forms of action, based on analyses of social

conditions, is a project that canand from a postanarchist standpoint, can only

take place in a decentralized manner with no single directing hand. But the factthat the movement cannot function cybernetically (Gr: kybernet es, a ships pilot,

the same root as government) does not mean that strategy must either be

abandoned altogether, or else left to develop stochastically. There are forms of

intervention in the movements intermural discourse which, depending on their

visibility and convincing power, can produce large-scale changes in the movements

priorities.

This type of intervention has already been widespread in the movements

tactical repertoire (tactical in the conventional sense). Individuals and groups have

innovated forms of action that have spread, as viral memes, through the networks.Many tactics, which have become a staple of anarchist practicefrom arm-tubes

and the Clown Army to Indymedia and radical bike cooperativesoriginated from a

conscious and creative starting point. These practices did not trickle down from any

steering committee but caught on based on their novelty, utility, and replicability.

Can a similar dynamic be attached to the proliferation of strategic outlooks?

Trivially, when more and more anarchists begin to express similar understandings

of their overall priorities in view of shared judgments about the present and future

social conditions, a common strategy can be said to be emerging. Such processes

do happen by themselves: the history of the anarchist movement has seen the

ebb and flow of strategies, from insurrectionalism and syndicalism to nonviolent

direct action and prefiguration. Yet for conscious intervention in the movements

strategic course, something more than the power of example is required. Strategies



6/10

6 Antipode

are more abstract and verbal than tactics, and thus not immediately available for

ocular demonstration. They are not practices but ideational frames within which

practices make sense.

This means that the only way to generate interventions in strategy is through some

form of intellectual labourwhich of course is by no means limited to the labour of

professional academics. But the attempt to influence anarchist networks strategicchoices does require careful and articulate speaking, writing, and discussing. There

are many examples of contemporary efforts in this vein, from the speaking tours

undertaken by numerous individual anarchist intellectuals of various persuasions

to the efforts of groups such as Team Colors and Crimethinc. in the USA, or the

Dissent! Roadshow and Climate Camp promotional tours in the UK. With their

diverse agendas and priorities, all of these efforts directly engage with activists in

order to argue for certain priorities taking the fore in the movements strategy, and

are sometimes quite successful in convincing large parts of the movement to redirect

their efforts in a particular direction.

Undue Polarities, Inevitable DecaySo much for anarchist revolutionary strategies in regard to their form. In turning

to content, I certainly have no pretence to provide any comprehensive program

or shocking insight. But I do have two things to say. First, I would like to dispel

what I think is a false dichotomy between prefigurative strategies and strategies of

building and intervening in mass movements. Second, I would like to highlight a

consideration that looms large in many current verbal, if not yet many published,

discussions of any future scenario for anarchist social transformation: the protracted,uneven and irreversible collapse of industrial society.

The false dichotomy in question seems to correspond to the polarization between

the more traditional class-struggle anarchists and the so-called small-a or new

school anarchists (Gordon 2008:2327; Graeber 2002). While the specific terms

on which it is presented change between various articulations, its general form

can be presented as follows: the small-a anarchists focus on prefigurative politics,

which means constructing alternatives to capitalism and the state by themselves

and among themselves. These alternatives seek maximal space for the experimental

realization of anarchist social forms, and are presented to surrounding society asexamples to be emulated on the self-same terms. Such a strategy allegedly aims to

achieve anarchy through a process of osmotic gradualism (Gambone undated)

whereby such alternatives proliferate to the degree that the state and capitalism

become so hollowed out that minimal violence is required to overthrow them.

Class-struggle anarchists, however, seek to mobilize the working class on its

own terms, by building mass organizations that struggle for the interests of the

oppressed. At the same time, their own specific anarchist organizations work to

bring the experience of past struggles into the current struggles, act as a centre

for debate and as a link between militants, and form a pole of attraction for new

militants. Anarchy is achieved as the result of a final and decisive confrontation

between the mass organizations and the state, with the former overseeing the

transition to anarchist communism and evolving into society itself.



7/10

Afterword 7

The late Joel Olson (2009:np) has expressed this polarity in a recent and widely

read essay. While its main argument is that in the USA, struggles against racial

oppression have a strategic centrality that other struggles lack, the essay also

criticizes the American anarchist scene (a derogatory term in itself) for abandoning

movement-building for the sake of self-referential activities:

A revolution is an actual historical event whereby one class overthrows another and (in

the anarchist ideal) thereby makes it possible to abolish all forms of oppression. Such

revolutions are the product of mass movements: a large group of people organized

in struggle against the state and/or other institutions of power . . . Yet in much of the

anarchist scene today, building free spaces and/or creating disorder are regarded as the

movement itself rather than components of one. Neither the infoshops nor insurrection

models build movements that can express the organized power of the working class.

Thus, the necessary, difficult, slow, and inspiring process of building movements falls

through the cracks between sabotage and the autonomous zone.

On the other side of the fence, a famous statement by a Crimethinc. contributor(Nadia C undated) argues:

What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter.

Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbours, and co-workers

are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And

politics should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly

to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining,

exciting, joyousbecause political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can

only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives . . . Never again shall we

sacrifice ourselves for the cause. For we ourselves, happiness in our own lives and the

lives of our fellows, must be our cause!

Polarized as these positions may seem in their most polemical expressions, I think

they are in fact anchored more in the desire of two competing cultural identities

within the contemporary (and in particular the American) anarchist movement to

mutually distinguish themselves, than in any actual dichotomy between joy and

effectiveness. On the one hand, consciously anarchist-led alternatives do not have

to be exclusive and isolated. An anarchist infoshop, bicycle workshop, urban farm,

or direct action collective can be very viably embedded within its local community,

making connections and forging coalitions with non-anarchists while influencing

group dynamics in its broader environment in a libertarian direction and seeding

mistrust of the state (cf Heathcott 1999; Morgan 2005; The Free Association 2011).

Even insurrectionary tactics are not necessarily alienating and threatening to non-

anarchists, as recent events up and down the US west coast indicate (Anonymous

2011). However, anarchist participation in broader social movements does not have

to adhere to stale, self-sacrificing models. There is a lot of personal fulfilment to

be gained from interacting with people outside our immediate political milieu,

and such movements may be directly relevant to our own conditions as workers,

students, women, minorities, and so on. The strategic choice is not dichotomous,

but rather involves selecting the best-situated forms of intervention that renderthe tension between anarchist values and non-anarchist struggles productive rather

than destructive.



8/10

8 Antipode

The second and final issue I want to address here revolves around a matter that

confronts us with something close to the status of an objective fact, all postanarchist

insistences on contingency and specificity notwithstanding. Barring the discovery

of cold fusion or some other miraculous turn of events, there is no doubt at least in

my mind that the combination of peaking oil production, runaway climate change,

and devaluing speculative capital places industrial civilizationand capitalismona trajectory of collapseprotracted, uneven, but irreversible. I also have the sense,

though I cannot prove it, that this realization is widely shared among anarchists

today. Within and outside the geographical discipline, our Marxist counterparts were

the ones to systematically frame environmental crisis in terms of limits to capitalist

accumulation (Benton 1996; Harvey 1996; OConnor 1998; Smith 1991). While the

jury is still out on how long capital can continue to displace these contradictions, I

want to draw attention to one possibility which these critics have not emphasized

enough in my opinion, namely, that the decomposition of capitalism may come

under management from above and give rise to more, rather than less, oppressive

social forms. As members of the Emergency Exit Collective (2008) put it:

Another world is not merely possible. It is inevitable. On the one hand . . . such a world

is already in existence in the innumerable circuits of social cooperation and production

in common based on different values than those of profit and accumulation . . . On

the other, a different world is inevitable because capitalisma system based on infinite

material expansionsimply cannot continue forever on a finite world. At some point, if

humanity is to survive at all, we will be living in a system that is not based on infinite

material expansion. That is, something other than capitalism. The problem is there is

no absolute guarantee that something will be any better. Its pretty easy to imagine

other worlds that would be even worse.As I have argued elsewhere in more detail (Gordon 2009), there are strong

indications that the more forward-thinking sections of the political, military, and

business elites are past the point of denial about this trajectory. On this reading,

current trends from green capitalism to fiscal austerity amount to efforts to prolong

the period of manageable crisis, so as to allow hierarchical institutions to adapt away

from capitalism. While dwindling energy resources will inevitably require a transition

to more local and labour-intensive forms of production, this transition can also be

an elite-driven process. Such a process would aim at the creation of post-capitalist

models of alienated production, which, while appropriate for a declining resource

base, continue to harness human productive power to arrangements of economic

imprisonment. If successful in the long run, such a strategy may usher in new forms

of feudalism in which labour is at least partly de-commodified and replaced by

serfdomwhile armed elites retain privileged access to whatever energy resources

remain.

Crucially, what this means for anarchist revolutionary strategies is that they can

no longer look forward to a revolutionary scenario wherein anarchist social forms

replace hierarchical ones while industrial modernity remains a stable constant.

Instead, strategies should be considered in the context of a struggle, which has

already begun, over the nature of the social and political structures that will ariseamid industrial modernitys decaying ruins. If a protracted, uneven, and irreversible

process of industrial collapse is acknowledged, then the key strategic question



9/10

Afterword 9

for anarchists becomes: how do we maximize communities prospects of moving

through this process towards more, rather than less, freedom and equality.

The strategic choices that I, for one, would consider to follow from such an outlook

in the immediate term include: the prioritizing of food and energy production

in efforts to build autonomous and egalitarian alternative spaces within the

shell of capitalist society; abolitionist resistance to genetic modification, nuclearenergy, and geoengineering; concerted opposition to the far right; and active

solidarity with the self-organized movements of the weakest sectors in society. To

be sure, these are only starting points for discussionthe point, however, is that

discussion along these coordinates in anarchist networks should be vibrant and

pervasive.

In closing, I would like to highlight what seems to be another inevitable

consequence of growing energy scarcity: the slowdown, halt, and eventual

reversal of the movement of economic globalization. The terrain of a collapsing

industrial civilization is one that is increasingly fragmented, localized, and uneven.

Perhaps here is where anarchist geographies can make their most valuable

contribution. By charting, characterizing, and even anticipating the dimensions of

such fragmentation, anarchist geographies of collapse may contribute to identifying

new openings for intervention, and possibilities for reconstruction.

ReferencesAnonymous (2011) Burning the bridges they are building: Anarchist strategies against

the police in the Puget Sound. http://riselikelions.net/file_download/31/burning_bridges_read.pdf (last accessed 11 June 2012)

Autonomous Geographies Collective (2010) Beyond scholar activism: Making strategicinterventions inside and outside the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journalfor Critical Geographies 9(2):245275

Benton T (ed) (1996) The Greening of Marxism. New York: GuilfordCause Commune (2012) Le movement etudiant sur le pied de guerre! Cause Commune

33(Winter)Emergency Exit Collective (2008) The 2008 G-8 in Hokkaidoa strategic assessment.

http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p = 41 (last accessed 11 June 2012)Gambone L (undated) An anarchist strategy discussion. http://mutualist.org/id13.html (last

accessed 11 June 2012)Gillan K and Pickerill J (eds) (2012) Special issue: The ethics of research on activism. Social

Movement Studies11(2)Gordon U (2008) Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. London:Pluto

Gordon U (2009) Dark tidings: Anarchist politics in the age of collapse. In R Amster, ADeLeon, L A Fernandez, A J Nocella II and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies(pp 249258). London: Routledge

Graeber D (2002) The new anarchists. New Left Review 13Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: BlackwellHeathcott J (1999) Broadening the anarchist gene pool: Two concerns for the future of

anarchist practice. Kick It Over 36 http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001858.html (last accessed 11 June 2012)

Ince A (2012) In the shell of the old: Anarchist geographies of territorialisation. Antipodethis

issueJun N (2011) Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: ContinuumMay T (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructualist Anarchism. University Park:

Pennsylvania State University Press



10/10

10 Antipode

Morgan W (2005) Where they retreat, we must advance: Building dual power. TheNortheastern Anarchist 10. http://www.nefac.net/node/1778 (last accessed 11 June 2012)

Nadia C (undated) Your politics are boring as fuck. http://crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php (last accessed 11 June 2012)

Newman S (2001) From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power.Lanham: Lexington

OConnor, J (1998) Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: GuilfordOlson J (2009) Between infoshops and insurrection: US anarchism, movement building, andthe racial order. http://www.anarchiststudies.org/node/313 (last accessed 11 June 2012)

Pistolero (2012) Nihilism as strategy. http://pistolsdrawn.org/nihilism-as-strategy/ (lastaccessed 11 June 2012)

Price W (2009) The two main trends in anarchism. http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536(last accessed 11 June 2012)

Rouhani F (2012) Practice what you teach: Placing anarchism in and out of the classroom.Antipodethis issue

Schmidt M and van der Walt L (2009) Black Flame: The revolutionary class politics of anarchismand syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press

Smith N (1991) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space (2nd edn).

Oxford: BlackwellThe Free Association (2011) Moments of Excess: Movements, Protest, and Everyday Life. Oakland:

PM PressVarious (2012) The University is Ours! A Conference on Struggles Within and Beyond the

Neoliberal University. Toronto, 2729 April. http://torontoedufactory.wordpress.com (lastaccessed 11 June 2012)


Documents

Anarchist Geographies and Revolutionary Strategies