"We need to build a new type of social relations and an invariable image of the future"

Civil polarization in the United States, Covid's pandemic, war in Ukraine, climatic threat, inequality - all these problems, as well as the inability of the global bureaucracy to foresee and decide literally scream that the world's order needs major repairs. Among the reasons for this situation is the very concept of the struggle for power and dominance as the purpose of the existence of states. Therefore, activists around the world are united in horizontal non -hierarchical structures, and philosophers develop the foundations of irreversible coexistence on Earth. The greenhouse talked about this with Maria Rachmaninova, the researcher of anarchism, the doctor of philosophical sciences, the co -founder of the magazine Akrateia and the author of the books “Power and the Body”, “Genealogy and theoretical foundations of modern forms of anarchism” and others.

"The dominant system of power encourages the fragmentation of the view of the world"

What are the main calls of anarchism? From the side it seems that marginalization and disunity of supporters, but from the inside probably everything looks different.

Anarchism is on the fact that it is important to localize problems at the specific points of the planet and think about how to solve them there. In our post -Soviet space, the agenda of colonialism is most relevant. Namely, the problem of the expansion of the Soviet Empire and its successor. In this part of the planet, this is a key problem that led to the fact that war became possible and we all ended up in the current situation. It is clear that the consequences of the war will affect Africa (for example, a crisis with grain supply) and in other regions.

Many in reasoning about the reasons for the war deprive Ukraine of subjectivity, but this is unlawful. Russian aggression and expansion occurred for a number of reasons, but the main cause of theological is the main thing to me. Anarchist optics helps to discern it - unlike Marxist ...

Theological? My Lord is the commander in chief?

The Marxists believe that the war in Ukraine is as if Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich, and the anarchists see here the problems of the state model itself - and above all, the heritage of the Soviet state ... By the way, I do not call it post -Soviet. After February 24, I refused this word, since no post-Soviet still came.

And under the control of a distraught theology, I mean faith in posthumry, the greatness of heroic life after death, all these gold zikgurats associated with the metaphysical picture of the world, erecting in the destroyed space of the social.

Since 2014, they have been waiting for a big war - it was unclear, only where and when. Although such a destructive one could also be predicted ... What can I say, since 2010 I knew about the presence of an order to form a Russian idea, and before that, as a student, when I was forced to read Dugina, it was added to us excitedly to the program.

Ok, but when I asked about the challenges of anarchism, I had in mind not so much a war as the perception of the idea. Often, even people from the world of activism, without blinking an eye, reproduce stereotypes like "anarchy - means chaos."

It is true, it is difficult to imagine a more discredited teaching. But this is a problem of representation, that is, the environment in which the idea itself is represented. The doctrine that criticizes all forms of power will obviously discredit and be silent for each of them. Therefore, when people say, anarchy is chaos, it means that they just know nothing about the anarchist tradition. Although this is also strange, because at least the names of Bakunin and Kropotkin even the Bolsheviks called their metro and streets stations.

Therefore, we must fight for representation. Incidentally, outside Russia, there are examples of collaboration of university structures and researchers of anarchy in universities. But anarchism does not have their media, therefore it is very difficult to increase visibility. Meanwhile, it is very important to talk not only about the path that anarchist thought has passed, but also about the experience of the practical embodiment of an anarchist project.

But there is an even more common stereotype that the idea of ​​invitation is bad, because the desire for power is embedded in human nature, is inherent in society, and so on.

Eat. When we talk about society, we are talking about a dynamic structure. Merab Mamardashvili spoke about the “environment of efforts”-the impulse, when we begin to do something, and it turns out. All social sciences speak of the fluidity, changeability of everything.

Therefore, it is surprising that the idea “a person cannot without power, strives for power” is still in the mainstream, although science has long found out that this is not so. After Sartre, no one repeats the essentialist theses about the athletes of human nature ... “Man has no nature, but there is freedom” - after that no one returned to this thesis. In addition, this representation is refuted by natural science methods.

What should a brief handbook preacher anarchism should look like now?

This year showed that the handbook is not what you need ...

What? VR shlem?

Actually, we have not been needed a book for a long time, but something more interesting ... if seriously, then the panorama of the troubles that concern us is that the picture of the world of each layman lacks. The layman does not understand the context. He sees a plate in front of him, and in the Sberbank and Pyaterochka window. Therefore, the only thing that can work for him is the explanation of what the context is and how it works.

It’s not even in anarchism, but in the fact that in areas that produce knowledge it is necessary to exhibit connections with everything. Because the dominant system of power encourages the fragmentation of the view of the world. Simply put, the task is holistic thinking.

"Technologies are moving towards the disaster, but the catastrophic is not the only opportunity hidden in them"

Ten years ago, it seemed that technology served just an enlightenment, including political. But optimism has exhausted quite quickly, and it became clear that without civil control of the technology they also serve both corporations and states, we are hunting before interfering in our personal life. Does anarchism have an answer to EvilTech - wider than cryptoanarchism ?

Here I must say that the very concept of "technology" is ambiguous. Some horizontal societies have, for example, an understanding of what a technology is in a horizontal society of an archaic type: to satisfy needs, inflicting the least damage of the environment and an ecosystem. If you apply this definition to modern society, it turns out that it is not technologically advanced. We are imposed on us unnecessary consumption and destroy ecosystems, often without the possibility of recovery.

Therefore, in anarchism, several currents were formed, which are different related to technologies. I am closer to the position of Murray Buhmchin. Productive use and growth of technologies require conditions. We are talking about the suspension of the principle of production for profit. Production should be focused on the needs of the community, which itself determines and formulates. And thus, it should cease to be transnational and should be localized in specific areas of the world and correlate with the ethnicity and need of people. And not with the figures of the profit that the corporations established. If you rely on the study of the capabilities of the media, then it becomes possible to talk about increasing benefits, not profit. There are alternative ways to develop technologies: for example, to promote the increase in the potential of the Earth, and not to exploit the soil in the name of multiplying capital.

OK, what about digital technologies?

Cybernetization allows you to get away from harmful production and come to automation. This may be a favorable environment for the environment. However, under existing conditions, such a reorientation of technology is hardly possible. In this sense, the capitalist state turns out to be a kind of king of Midas: everything that it concerns turns into ashes.

Anarchopimitivists are convinced that the technique is already charged to the reproduction of power. This is a powerful branch in anarchism, it is characterized by radical technoscepticism.

At the moment, technologies are confidently moving towards the disaster, but the catastrophic is not the only opportunity hidden in them. You know, this is like an education. When I was going to quit the university after February 2022, I asked myself the question: is this definitely a university? No, this is a barracks. I had to quit.

As for the technology, it is curious that when students of technical specialties try to apply their knowledge outside the logic of capital, they immediately run into the wall of the impossible. So, one young man came up with a mechanism that at a completely early stage captures the gas leak in the mine. He developed all this, designed as it should, but they told him: no, a boy, if we put our installation, we will have to pay fines for the slightest leak and convert all the mines. No, it’s easier for us to cover the sensor with specialists.

How do you evaluate one of the most famous lower -level anti -war resistance associations in Russia - FAS ? They just actively use technologies.

Different forms are needed, different forms are important. In the context of the trouble in which we found ourselves, this is a useful thing ...

I hear skepticism in the wording .

No no. Just nothing fundamentally new - female anti -war resistance existed for a long time . With all my joy, from what the PHAS participants are doing, it would be a historical untrue to say that they are the first. I don’t know who the FAS is to compare directly, but in general ... Here are the partisans: Mujeres Libres or Frauen Bund in Germany, a thousands of antimilitarian anarcho-syndicalist trade union in the first third of the twentieth century.

The fact that the FAS rethinks within itself the idea of ​​power is cool. There, liberal ideas often slip in rhetoric, but this does not cancel the fact that in general it is a good thing.

" The state has reached new levels of control over personal life and police violence "

Do I correctly understand that the Akratic (“A” - without, “Kratos” is power. - Per. With the Greek.) Is this a concept that can replace anarchy?

Not really. As part of the work on a doctoral dissertation dedicated to anarchist study of the authorities, I proposed the concept of “Akratic” as anarchism that goes beyond the limits of anarchism and allows you to cover a larger circle of statements and sources. Much of what is anarchist in its mood did not belong to the movement of the anarchists. For example, Franz Kafka sympathized with the anarchists and attended rallies and was charged with the idea of ​​deconstruction of power, which can be seen from his books, but he himself did not go with the black flag. That is, Akratic - this is generally aimed at an invitation, only with the need to related itself to the movement of the anarchists, but consonant with its theoretical foundations, his spirit.

At the same time, all anarchism is Akratic. The idea of ​​an abundance is built around the value of the abandonment of the vertical, it is an invalid view of the world. Simply put, a person from the outside can explain that both Akratic and anarchy are installations for abandation. Only in the case of Akratic, we are talking about criticizing the imperious order in the world, vertical as a model of interaction, and anarchist movements already develop the political incarnations of this idea.

What does non -violent resistance through Akratic optics look like among activists?

Akratic optics, and many course of anarchism, adhere to the principle that there is no freedom to the enemies of freedom. There is no such idea that we need to endure everything that they do with us. Violence is considered acceptable as a way of protecting horizontal self -government and decisions adopted by the collective subject.

Is the idea of ​​the world confederation popular in anarchism, which after the outbreak of war returned to the field of political discussion, not only states, but communities united by an invalid model?

The discussion of this idea was actualized even before the war, because, say, after the beginning of the pandemic of Covid, the state reached new levels of control of personal life and police violence. Let us recall Foucault's studies about the growth of power technologies for epidemics. The authorities are increasingly practicing the good old methods of social administration-this also applies to problems associated with climatic migration, with migration due to wars. States are getting worse than hiding hypocrisy behind polite phrases, and they cannot cope with global problems. The creation of supranational structures does not solve these problems. EU or something else-no, they do not decide. On the contrary, often such associations are created to evade the already found ways to solve these problems.

The classical idea of ​​the state crashed and is not able to work with the challenges of our time. Therefore, the concept of alter-globalism is now relevant, that is, leaving the old states and models of interaction between different parts of the world. This requires rebooting approaches to environmental management and abandoning capital logic - for example, from increasing production without looking at environmental systems.

This discussion is underway. But hot spots distract us from this, for example, now we are thinking mainly about the war. The war, for example, posed a question: what could be the basis of solidarity, given the nightmare experience of Soviet colonialism and the current horror of the war with which the carriers of red passports are associated? How can respect for respectful communication in places where they used to be forced to the Russian language before? Will the rejection of him help? The way out, it seems to me, is in Esperanto, which situations can be English. In our experience, English is not present as a colonialism tool.

In this sense, Russian problems are a special case of global. This is a general challenge - overcoming polarization and the development of dialogue with carriers of a variety of positions, including cannibalist. What does anarchism think about it?

The problem of overcoming polarization in society is rooted in the structure of the national state as a predominant form of organization of society. Indeed, this problem arises only when people with very different ideas are locked in a limited territory, how to live. In this sense, the form of free associations could dramatically reduce the severity of the problem of “different views” - if any point of view ceases to claim universality, then the problem of reconciliation with the carriers of “cannibal” views acquires a slightly different, more technical dimension.

But even if you forget about the state as a form and about its alternatives, then for Russian society it is much more relevant to build and strengthen horizontal connections within oppositional layers of the population. It is also important to look for effective means of distributing images of the world different from translated by official propaganda.

Ordinary inhabitants - alas, this type is common not only in Russia, but also in the world - with great reluctance to do anything. Their position - at least opposition, although pro -government - does not make much sense until it is confirmed by business. They must feel the reason to stop being inhabitants, make a risky “investment” of their comfort in the dangerous lifestyle of the opposition. In fact, opposition rhetoric should encourage a person to totally change his being. Of course, this rhetoric can not do it, but a worsening economic situation can help here.

Consequently, it is necessary to build a new type of social relations within the opposition community - an invalid, as inclusive - the prototype of the future society, which should not resemble the old one. In this task, such ancient anarchist technologies as consensus come to the rescue.

Does decentralization interfere with the global association of anarchists? Are there any general problems for which it is convenient to develop general solutions?

Only a community living in a particular region can decide for itself. There are no structures that would lower the solutions from top to bottom. That is, anarchism does not escape global solutions, but in order to decide what to do in a particular place, you need to discuss the situation with each other well and know it well. A striking example is Khomsky: he definitely can’t see what is happening in Ukraine, but he does not suspect about it ...

And not only to him.

Yes, even Gelderloos disappointed, although it would seem ... So, when we discuss our local problem, we contribute to solving a common problem. In other words, the logic of power is considered a problem, and in order to dismantle this logic in each region, local discussion and efforts are needed.

And some supranational efforts? For example, a general strike of care or the same Fridays for Future model?

No. How does this work? The principle of, for example, Food Not Bombs, helping in need. It is one, but is carried out differently in different regions. That is, the tactics are regional and local, and the idea is common. So much so that it can even be touched by air -free institutions.

An example is libertarian pedagogy, which all the way insisted on the unproductiveness of the use of power mechanisms in education and education and contrasted itself with classical pedagogy, which subsequently pounded us with rulers and a Happy Inglim on the head. Даже на естественнонаучном уровне доказано, что для обучения вреден стресс, повышенный кортизол… Еще не ссылаясь на естественнонаучные исследования, либертарная педагогика фактически предваряет их своими акратическими исканиями — задолго до таких бестселлеров, как, например, «Тело помнит все» Ван дер Колка.

Так же, как капитализм переварил все конструктивное, что было нового в 1968 году. Переварил и обеззубил. Бизнес учится у анархизма.

Я бы сказал: присваивает. Поскольку капитализм — искусство упаковки.

Yes. Даже большие IT-компании убирают фигуру босса и устраивают тимбилдинг по принципу анархизма. Это работает, это эффективно, просто они никогда не признаются, что в основе анархические идеи. Берут только то, что им нужно, а размышлять об истоках боятся, так как это невыгодно и опасно, отказываться от структуры власти им не хочется.

Кажется, что главная проблема с идеей безвластия связана с силой предубеждений. Например, люди так свыклись с государством, что оно им кажется константой, а все иные модели совместной жизни на Земле — утопией…

Да, учебники истории и другие официальные дискурсы обычно нарочито обходят молчанием многочисленные эпизоды успешного самоуправления. Это вполне закономерно: чтобы избежать попыток изменить статус-кво текущих систем власти, необходимо создать убежденность в том, что любые альтернативы текущему положению вещей абсурдны и, более того, никогда не существовали. Утопия в этом взгляде трактуется не как «место, которого нет», но как «место, которого нет, никогда не было и быть не может». Это существенное уточнение бессовестно манипулятивно и не имеет ничего общего ни с реальностью, ни с этимологией слова.

Современные исследования подтверждают: человечество обладает колоссальным опытом безгосударственной самоорганизации в разных регионах и в разные эпохи. Антрополог Джеймс Скотт отмечал, что до середины XX века количество подобных обществ заметно превосходило количество обществ привычного нам властнического типа. Скотт продолжает и развивает исследования Зомии — обширного горного региона Юго-Восточной Азии, образованного обществами, в разные периоды ускользавшими от формировавшихся на равнинах государств (см. его книгу «Искусство быть неподвластным»).

Скотт исследует так называемый «эффект государства», развенчивая марксистский миф о стадиальной природе государственности как одного из прогрессивных этапов человеческой истории. Для него — и для нас — важно продемонстрировать, что безгосударственные общества могут существовать не только параллельно государствам, но и в результате отказа от включенности в них (зачастую также подразумевающего отказ от письменности и истории).

Зомия — это мозаичное полотно, состоящее из множества подобных обществ, сознательно отвергнувших государственность и власть и выбравших путь самоуправления. Однако это далеко не единственный пример такого пути. Не только на протяжении истории, но и в самое недавнее время существовало и продолжает существовать множество обществ, сделавших аналогичный выбор. Архаичные безгосударственные островные и горные общества; опыт коренных народов различных регионов мира; вольные вечевые города Средневековой Европы и России; высокогорные общества Кавказа; украинская вольница и махновский опыт освобождения городов для самоуправления и экспериментов в области педагогики, социальных и экономических практик; необычайная победа испанской революции 1936 года и расцвет самоуправления по всей Испании; завоеванные автономные зоны (например, сапатистская автономия в штате Чьяпас); израильские кибуцы (в том числе успешный и высокотехнологичный анархический кибуц Самар).

Многочисленные эксперименты с самоуправлением в педагогике, тимбилдинге и других областях — это красноречивые свидетельства состоятельности и ценности опыта самоорганизации и горизонтального самоуправления. Все это заслуживает внимания исследователей и всех обитателей городов, которые, как и государства, изо всех сил пытаются казаться нам единственно возможными формами социальности.