Willful Disobedience

by Wolfi Landstreicher

The collected writings of Wolfi Landstreicher's Willful Disobedience. Originally published as a zine from 1996 to 2006, Willful Disobedience was a continuously evolving provocation directed towards anarchists and fellow vagabonds to dig deeper into critical thought and joyous rebellion.

During the ten years of publication, Willful Disobedience wove together a web of ideas situation in the following threads: an anarchism based in Stirner-influenced egoism; an insurrectionary approach that sees individual insurrection to be as important as social insurrection; a non-primitivist critique of civilization that provides no program or model for a future society; explorations into a class analysis that rejects marxian categories, seeking to understand social relationships as they actually exist; insisting upon the need for anarchists to develop a coherent practice of theory capable of calling everything into question, including one's own ideas, and an anti-political perspective, critical of leftism, democracy, identity politics, and political correctitude.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy

319 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[aa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sigh. Remember when anarchists were anti-politics and anti-left? Those were the days.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

These are earlier works by an author that I’m more familiar with through his later project, a zine called “My Own.” The essays in this volume were released in a self-published magazine called, unsurprisingly, “Willful Disobedience,” and the break between the two publications seems to represent a shift in the author’s thinking. This collection is written by a younger person, and seems likely to appeal more to younger people, although the two do mesh in many ways. Both come from an anarchist perspective, written in opposition to domination, rulership, capitalism, “civilization,” and slavery. Both articulate that perspective critically, as opposed to anti-intellectual approaches intended to serve as echo-chambers for the converted, so may do more to explicate these arguments to those trying to apprehend them intellectually.

The biggest difference between the two publications is implicit in the name of the second. In “Willful Disobedience,” Landstreicher frequently speaks of projects to take back “our lives,” to make them “our own.” At least if I recall correctly, this has been abandoned in “My Own,” in favor of that phrase – the project now is to take back “my life” in the here and now and make it “my own.” This is not to say that Landstreicher has become totally disillusioned or misanthropic, more that he has chosen not to stake his anarchism on the actions and desires of others. If he can find like-minded companions, so much the better, but regardless, he goes forth in his project of claiming his freedom. In this book, there are a surprising number of imperatives attached to the plural: “We must destroy the net and venture into the unknown…only in this struggle can we snatch the time and space we need for such experiments…When asked ‘If we destroy work, how can we eat?’ all one can say is ‘We will figure that out as we go along.’” That’s a lot of “us” doing things (and doing things we must, or can only do), which I don’t recall from “My Own.”

Another phrase that comes up a lot in “Willful Disobedience” that is certainly less important in “My Own” is the “Social Revolution.” Revolution has always been a bit of a sticking point in anarchism. Historically, revolutions have been participated in by minorities (albeit sometimes quite large minorities), and usually result in a shifting of the reigns of power from an old elite to a new one. Anarchist theory (and it is articulated here at least as well if not better than anywhere else) says that the anarchist revolution will be a spontaneous uprising of people everywhere to throw off their chains without embracing new ones. Enough people, if not all people, will benefit from this to a degree that they will prevent a new elite from establishing a new order, as people organize their own lives as they see fit. Even from an optimistic point of view, it is hard to imagine this. It seems like at least some people will desire the continuity of institutions like property, wealth, policing, and other aspects of government, and so anarchists seem likely to be put in a position of imposing their vision of freedom upon others. If they don’t, it seems that organized and armed aspiring elites will use the power vacuum as an opportunity to impose their views instead.

The other problem with the anarchist social revolution, which I think the Landstreicher of “My Own” is conscious of, is that it is in Max Stirner’s terms a “spook” or phantasm. It has never happened, therefore to base one’s actions on it is to believe in something that does not exist. This is in Landstreicher’s terminology, reification, and part of the way the ruling class tricks its servants into living for something to come in the future, rather than in the moment, in reality as it exists here and now. In the last essay in this volume, Landstreicher addresses this by calling it a “wager,” but this is not entirely convincing. It seems to me that the project of anarchism as defined in “My Own” changes the wager to something like “I will risk rebelling against this society on my own terms in order to claim what freedom I can in the moment, without worrying about what the future might or might not bring. I will look for others doing the same so that I can collaborate with them where possible to expand that freedom.” This will probably strike some as defeatist, as giving up on a hope for anarchist transformation of society, but it seems to me that it offers a freedom from the future, from the will of the mass of people, and from the obligation to force that vision onto others.

[k.]

“…most people prefer the security of their misery to the unknown of insurrection and freedom.” p 176

since i write these reviews for myself, i will leave a note here. this book is worth reading and rereading. but my writing of this review has been fraught and some hasty thoughts follow.

i was very hostile to this book at first. i find bombastic declarations of total revolution quite boorish. seriously, where do these anarchs get the energy? i am a quietist at heart; more more concerned with the daily project of survival than i am with extremes of aesthetic achievement. happier with a cheese platter than i am making war.

i definitely opened up to it as it grew and developed, and i would hazard that its generally worth engaging with. does seem to miss the point about social justice, which is odd given how much terms like “social struggle” get used. there is definitely some internal tension around its expression of individualism and its addiction to social struggle & social liberation. its constant use of the pronoun “we” for things that really only wolfi and three other insurrectionists want. the main tension tho is between its advocation of TOTAL WAR and my desire of achievable victories, however small. but then these days i’m happier taking the label of epicurean, as opposed to saddling myself with onerous political doctrines. i might be enthused by wolfi’s “vibrancy”, but simply don’t see my life in such extreme terms.

[Krissy · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it touches some interesting and important topics, a few parts of this doesn't resonate to me at all. It doesn't help that I'm not big on Stirner.

[Sean A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Back when I tried to read this book I was struck by how poorly written it was.