Article Submission to Class War.


Chaoticism grew from the movement of anarchism in this country; firstly as a move to discuss the issues of feminism in the context that we saw as being genuinely revolutionary; and secondly in order to build a movement on the level of the street, that would be ready to inspire a movement such as that against the poll tax, and then be ready to uphold the overthrow of the state. This movement would be born from resistance already established, and then would be started as a movement founded with the support of that resistance growing into a cultural issue. This movement would be built of the actions of the whores, and would lead to our emancipation in the sense of the discussion previously in these pages. It would be an anarchist revolution. But the anarchists refused to give us their support.

That issue of support, could easily have been the result of our movement being one that was run from the inside of a psychiatric hospital. This, in itself would have been an emblem of the prejudice that the anarchist movement has against the mentally ill and the disabled, in their subconscious. But we believe more strongly, that the reason for the lack of support from the anarchist movement, was more probably the result of their closed mindedness and denial of the discussion and debate that is necessary if to pose a realistic threat to the state. We question whether or not the anarchists really know the issues involved if they are to overthrow the state.

This movement, as said before, was started as a result of the resistance that was becoming reality on the street, as the result of a growing cultural change that instated in society that revolution in Britain, and across the world, was a reality. This movement did actually overthrow the state. Despite the state having been overthrown, and the growing cultural awareness of revolution that was growing on the streets and amongst the prostitutes, the anarchists refused to acknowledge their own place in the revolution, any further than in the role of throwing bricks. Therefore, we are led to question whether they have any sound revolutionary strategy; and whether they are capable of actually overthrowing the state.

The problem isn't so much that they have little revolutionary strategy, but is that they seem so blinkered as to the struggle of everyday life, and that they are hostile to so many aspects of the revolution as they exist today. Whether this is due to such media lies against ourselves and other guerillas, making them "brainwashed by the spectacle", as they so often accuse those who are more influenced by the mainstream, is an issue for discussion. But the situation stands that they are deaf to the views of the street that actually represent the manifestation of the revolution itself. If the anarchists are to overthrow the state, then that involves the support of guerillas. Despite this, the anarchist prejudice against the I.R.A. is, it has to be said, bias and distorted by the press.

We are not saying that the I.R.A. are anarchist, or even that they have a revolutionary strategy. But the situation stands that they are in struggle against the state, and that they are guerilla. It is this struggle against the state that we take as our inspiration; and if the anarchists wont support, then we can split.

This conclusion is not going to be a slander against the anarchist movement; we draw influence, and a lot of what they say we support. The anarchist involvement with riot is something that we respect, and we dont demonise riot. At the same time, the views of a lot of the people who do participate in riot, but who aren't anarchist, has to be considered. The influence of the anarchist movement is important and cultural, and is something we would like to discuss. But at the same time, anarchist politics have little practical to offer a post revolutionary society that will work for all, and will not become corrupt. It is in constructing a view on how the state could be overthrown, to the benefit of all, that we recognised the failings of anarchism in the light of the revolutionary struggle against the state. We do still advocate a society with neither police nor state, but in the reasoning behind how this can actually be constructed, we have found serious points of disagreement.

The main point of disagreement is that, the anarchists are not only disorganised, as is their cliché, but that they use this cliché to apologise for their blatant lack of support. It may be considered that an anarchist/chaoticist movement in struggle to motivate a workers uprising without the sectarian waffle of previous anarchist movements, would be supported by the left. A movement with a clear revolutionary strategy to support the anarchists should be supported by the anarchists. Such a situation was not to be.

As we write this, we have still to start building debating support from the Marxists. As said before, we do have some fundamental disagreements with the philosophy that there should be a workers state. We believe in an equalitarian society without a state. But the problem in not only in creating a state free society: it is how this society will stay free. There has never been a successful revolution, one that is anarchist, and we see that as a reason why issues such as distribution need to be debated. This is why we debate them. But certain issues which have never been debated, are still issues in contention. We look at these issues, because we believe that it is for this reason that the anarchists have always had such a small amount of support. The issues we speak of, are the issues which are contended by the anarchists themselves, and also those issues which they fail to discuss.

One such issue that the anarchists fail to discuss, in general, is the issue of mental illness. As these words are being written, I am sitting in a psychiatric hospital, unable to leave and injected as a result of my political views. This could have been one of the reasons for my lack of support. Even if that is the case, it is still an issue to be discussed. Another issue is, of course, prostitution.

Let's consider the situation. In a stateless society, there will be no prison and no police. This goes without saying. Peoples attitude to crime will be completely different. Society will be responsible for its own problems in the free acceptance of equality, without the police running after us in the name of the ruling classes. There will be a completely different cultural idea of criminality. People will co-operate. But there will still be mental illness.

Those of us who are suffering from the authority of the doctors and the violence of locked wards can tell you that insanity is not much fun. The mentally ill are not responsible for their own actions, and the system of "psychiatric care" is still as draconian as it has ever been. Still, the anarchists have refused to fairly discuss this, and many other issues, altogether. The argument, if challenged, is that there are holes in every other political philosophy. The C.C.A. do not deny that there are, but question the anarchist sectarianism towards a new political philosophy posing the actual possibility of overthrowing the state. Maybe it is because of genuine disagreement with our views. However, we see it as their arrogance and self centred attitude towards their own views. The C.C.A. have answers to these questions, and whilst we can not answer them all, we stand as a group dedicated to the debate of the issues of the revolution. Another disagreement is that we believe that revolution should be organised by a guerilla. Revolutions do not take place by themselves. The C.C.A. have set up as an organisation to debate the issues that are so much surrounded in silence by the anarchists, and in that we feel that to become devolved from the movement of anarchism is the correct step.

It is true that the anarchists have some important campaigning groups; the American I.W.W. for instance. This is one example of an organised campaigning group who have made some genuinely useful moves in the role of supporting the workers. But, at the same time, the campaigning anarchist movement can only exist as separate movements, sectarian in themselves, and divided without support. The anarchists have neither the support nor the strategy to inspire the revolution that they hope to create.

For this reason, the C.C.A. must stand as a group to discuss the issues of direct action, and therefore stand as a union with definite revolutionary strategy in the first place. We believe that our strategy of organising from the so called "lowest" in society, is a solid base on which to build discussion and support. We start by advocating the strategy of building on the situations of unrest against the Conservative party, in the aim of building support for those guerillas we hope to inspire, through the actual perpetuation of direct action as it is inspired by the C.C.A. as a campaigning organisation. It is in this that we believe our strategy to be revolutionary as opposed to the strategy of the anarchist left. Whilst the anarchists both advocate and support revolutionary direct action, they have little insight into how it may work, and have little more influence in organising it. Our point is that, to support direct action, you must offer direct action to support it. In our advocation of arson, we point out that we are ourselves arsonists.

It is in this point that we question the strategy of the anarchists. Whereas they themselves may be the advocates of direct action, they rarely advocate that through the actual acts of direct action themselves; and they are certainly not guerrilla. And in saying that, the anarchist advocates of riot know nothing about riot organising and, as we have pointed out, they have been known to threaten riot organisers themselves, sometimes because of jealousy towards the factions that have claimed responsibility for those said riots.

Therefore, rather than setting up merely to criticise the anarchist left, we set up through the strategy of campaign through example.

The strategy of campaigning through example, and the strategy of splitting from the psychological straightjacket of anarchist politics, are both helped by the press. In a society of Big Brother, where our every move and thought is scrutinised by the press, our strategy has to be built towards preventing this situation from developing any further. For this reason, it is genuinely important that we advocate arson: not only as a threat to prevent the situation from escalating, but also because, in this situation, arson is a direct threat to the state. As we point out, the C.C.A. are actually arsonists taking control of our own lives and situations, rather than being old philosophers confined to the armchair of discussing how the state may be overthrown; as so many anarchists are. Maybe this is our reason for splitting from the anarchist movement to see who else is willing to offer their support. Our issue is unique. It has grown from a movement on the street, and is new. If it is the case that those who potentially offer support belong to a different point of view than the anarchist movement, then it can only be right to explore these philosophies as equals amongst those who offer their support.

The anarchist armchair of which we speak, is the armchair of the minions who advocate direct action without the insight into how the legal system reacts to what they call the "guilty culprits". The C.C.A. are run from a "medium secure environment"; a secure psychiatric hospital. We live here as a result of acts of direct action, as opposed to so called militant campaigning groups who support direct action without the knowledge of the police or the issue and how they work on the street. Direct action is an issue that we support, although we question whether the anarchists really know what they are advocating in the name of overthrowing power. The feminist movement have a greater insight, but are divided in their advocations and philosophy: maybe even more so than the anarchists.

That is the reason for the C.C.A. Through propaganda we hope to support and discuss the campaigning left. But in setting up a movement split from the mainstream of anarchism, we are setting up a movement that can stand independently to support direct action in our own right. It is in this independence that we hope to build support, not only from the groups that we already support, such as the A.L.F. and the E.C.P., but also from the factions that speak to our potential support; wherever that may be. Through setting up a faction that are split from the mainstream of anarchist politics, we hope to be seen as a movement within ourselves, and not just another splinter, of which the anarchists have many. These splinters are another issue that we feel we should take time to discuss.

The reason why the anarchist movement have so many splinters and divides, is because the anarchists cannot agree. To every disagreement they become sectarian against one another, and hence the anarchist movement becomes divided. In splitting from anarchism, the C.C.A. hope to leave the splits and disputes that have so much confused the anarchists. It is these splits that are reason they have divided support. In politics you have to demonstrate solidarity and unity. Without these we can only hope to be seen as divided but militant. The C.C.A. are no different from any other anarchist splinter; exept for our advocation of guerilla warfare. It is in this that we intend to keep the strategy of the anarchist movement, but to take it to the rest of the left with the intention of building support for the individuals who run their own issues; in anarchism and in every other issue outside of the parliamentary front of democracy. What makes our issue unique, is that we are the militant advocation of arson in the name of those imprisoned for arson.

What we are not saying, is that the anarchists should inspire revolution through threatening arson. In the same way we are not saying that everyone who supports the C.C.A. should go out to threaten arson. Arson is a dangerous tool, and it can become corrupt. Therefore we advocate that arson should be very well considered, and this is why there must be a sound revolutionary organisation, such as ourselves, who will stand against authority to advocate arson, and will not become corrupt. It is in this concept, and in that we have already advocated arson properly, that we stand as an independent revolutionary organisation to support arson and the actions of our comrades in perpetuating arson.

It is not that we do not support the anarchists because they do not commit arson, either. If the anarchists were to campaign for arson, we would give our support to that issue. We support the Mabion Glendower, as we will support any feminist or communist group in the actions of arson, if we believe that those actions are genuinely revolutionary from the perspective of the street. It is just that the issues supported by the C.C.A. have gone beyond the dogma and the many mistakes of anarchism.

And on that subject, it is necessary to point out that, the reason why the C.C.A. have split, and the reason we give more support to anarchism, is that we do not accept that the anarchists have a clear independent strategy of how to get "from here to there". This is the issue that the anarchists have taken so much time to discuss, and is the issue that we discuss in this book. In over one hundred years of discussion, the anarchists have come up with no clear strategy, and those factions of the anarchist movement, namely the I.W.W., who have come up with a clear strategy, have become boring and stagnant. We do support the feminist movement, in that they do have clear practical and political strategies, although we do have disputes on the issues of prostitution. Whilst accepting that the feminists cannot accept men, and that some of the C.C.A. are men, we believe that the issues of prostitutes liberation are potentially revolutionary, and we intend to build our debate, hopefully on equal terms.

It would not be a problem that the anarchists have no cohesive strategy, exept for the fact that a lot of people are drawn into anarchism, with the dream of creating a better world; the revolution. We believe that there should be a general umbrella, without any one single dogma, to allege the theories and strategies of all the separate little anarchist groups without being threatened by the state. We cannot do this: such an organisation would have to exist within the law. However, as the anarchist movement currently stands, they are not directly revolutionary, but are something cultural.

Therefore, the C.C.A. support the anarchists in the name of arming the prostitutes in the name of violent and cultural revolution. Rather than being anarchist, we would invent the term 'Advocist'; this term meaning that we are advocates of the anarchist revolution. The revolution that is a potential reality, if the anarchists are to realise their failings. And we invent the term 'Chaoticism' for the title of this book.

Revolutions, violent or purely cultural, are inspired by chaos. For Rebethuin Fundamentalism, or for want of a better word, we invent the term chaotic anarchism. This is where we see that the anarchists are sectarian. This is where we see it that anarchists are clever in their philosophy, but are often arrogant.

All forms of anarchism, and there are many, crite Kropotkins 'Mutual Aid' as fundamental in their philosophy. We are the same. But the anarchists will fail to acknowledge the advocation of chaos as being revolutionary, and despite the advocations of the Cestre Cantre Advocation, the anarchists still see the prostitutes in the same light. We do not wish to be sectarian, and we ask them to join. All that we say, is that many of the issues in society exist outside the scope of anarchist politics, and that certain issues need to be addressed if we are ever to have influence as a part of the coming revolution. We have some answers.

Where does the revolution end? Does it end once the government has been overthrown, or does it end when the people are co-operating on the basis of mutual aid? The C.C.A. would say that revolution is an on going process, that is going on now, and will always continue. We need to rethink the idealism of "the coming revolution", and to think about those issues, particularly those issues on the street, that are currently revolutionary; and will become a current of the revolution. Guerilla struggle is one of these issues. Prostitution is another.

The anarchists have, in the past, sought to convert the people into the politics of libertarian anti state decay. Advocism seeks not to convert, but to participate in the struggles that are politically correct.

For that reason we have to look to anarchism itself as a movement on the street; one that is revolutionary, but without the potential to overthrow the state. The only movement that can do that, is the mass movement of the workers in struggle. In this book we have looked to the prostitutes as the catalyst to inspire that. The anarchists could equally be a revolutionary catalyst; but in a different way. We do not see the anarchists, in their current state of chaos, to be a movement that can do this. That is, in their current state of chaos.

Having said that anarchism is disorganised; that is a cliché. We have a lot of support for the anarchist movement as it exists in its current state of relative disunity. After all, with all of our theory and pontification about Satanism and authority, we can only be seen to be a split from mainstream anarchism, who are very slightly different.

The point, however, is that the C.C.A. are radically different. The C.C.A. have established a movement that was built from a scene that was anarchist, to pose the actual possibility of overthrowing the state: The poll tax riots of '90-'91.

The poll tax riots are our real example of how a revolution could actually take place. Whereas the miners strike and Wapping were revolutionary, the poll tax riots were genuinely motivated by the politics of the left, and were a situation into which a generation of people grew up. This is a generation, many of who will be exploited in prostitution, who intrinsically believe that revolution is a possibility, if that situation were ever to repeat itself. A generation that will become prostitutes, parents and policemen/women. It is that realisation that all the politics in this book are referring to. We are speaking about a generation and a society to come, rather than extreme left sectarianism and disputes about terrorist assassination. The problem now, more than ever before, is the ruling classes.

But the left have failed to see this. The anarchists did their bit in the anti poll tax movement, and the left followed. After that, we have seen very little revolutionary conflict inspired by the anarchists and the rest of the left. That is with the exeption of the roads protests. But the roads protests are not the issue we wish to build upon. They are not a direct movement to challenge the authority of the state, despite the merit they have in perpetuating the movement of direct action.

We advocate that our movement observe these movements, from the miners strike of the past, to the roads protests of the present, in order to build a current amongst the working classes to set up for a revolutionary catalyst to be established when this movement does take place. A movement of militant idealism in prostitution could do this, and such a situation of which we speak, could easily be set up through a movement of theft. Therefore, there is surely a need for a propaganda group to discuss such issues, to agitate for such a situation to take place and to found an underground for the prostitutes to do this. Therefore there is surely a need for the C.C.A.

"I will not sit on broken glass... I will not cut my fucking arse". Misfits: Static Age.