Afterword Anarchist Geographies and Revolutionary Strategies

Uri Gordon
The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Kibbutz Ketura, D.N. Hevel Eilot 88840, Israel; uri@riseup.net

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 rst concerns the anarchademic enterprise itself, and its possible contribution to the development of anarchist politics. The second concerns a more specic problematic, which accompanies the integration of poststructuralist insights into our understanding of anarchism, and the concomitant celebration of pregurative 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, how are 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 few basic 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.
Antipode Vol. 00 No. 0 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 110 C 2012 The Author. Antipode C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01036.x

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 reexive 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 insufcient rationale 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 preguration, encouraging modes of learning that are anti-hierarchical, noncoercive, 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 owering 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 scant inuence 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 scientic validity which inform, as well as divide, the rank and le. 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 reections (cf Autonomous Geographies 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 ow of reciprocity. They also note that even if such publication is freely shared, its language, ndings and timeliness may be of limited use. But even if we make the utmost effort to keep our language accessible and our ndings 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

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Afterword

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 afnity with a political community to whose struggles they seek to contribute. Whether this is done by absorbing and rening 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 reexivity for wider anarchist circles. But what, in turn, is this reexivity supposed to achieve? Again, with research involving discrete groups and struggles the dividend may be localized and specic. 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 clarication. 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 qualies such decisive help as specically strategic. In the next section, I would like to dedicate closer attention to this term, specically in the context of its apparent denigration in the postanarchist vocabulary.

Salvaging Strategy
This 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, and tactical. 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
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

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 is to 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 system collapse, 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 longterm planning, which combines individual tactical choices as well as the building of force and infrastructures, in order to win a war. Expanding from the strictly military denition 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
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Afterword

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 fact that the movement cannot function cybernetically (Gr: kybernts, a ships pilot, ee 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 ow of strategies, from insurrectionalism and syndicalism to nonviolent direct action and preguration. Yet for conscious intervention in the movements strategic course, something more than the power of example is required. Strategies
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

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 inuence anarchist networks strategic choices 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 Decay

So 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 pregurative 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 specic terms on which it is presented change between various articulations, its general form can be presented as follows: the small-a anarchists focus on pregurative 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 as examples 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 specic 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 nal and decisive confrontation between the mass organizations and the state, with the former overseeing the transition to anarchist communism and evolving into society itself.
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Afterword

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, difcult, 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 fullling. 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 sacrice 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 inuencing 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 nonanarchists, 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-sacricing models. There is a lot of personal fullment 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 render the tension between anarchist values and non-anarchist struggles productive rather than destructive.

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

The second and nal 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 specicity 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 capitalismon a 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 prot and accumulation . . . On the other, a different world is inevitable because capitalisma system based on innite material expansionsimply cannot continue forever on a nite world. At some point, if humanity is to survive at all, we will be living in a system that is not based on innite 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 scal 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-commodied 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 arise amid industrial modernitys decaying ruins. If a protracted, uneven, and irreversible process of industrial collapse is acknowledged, then the key strategic question

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Afterword

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 modication, nuclear energy, 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.

References
Anonymous (2011) Burning the bridges they are building: Anarchist strategies against the police in the Puget Sound. http://riselikelions.net/le_download/31/burning_bridges_ read.pdf (last accessed 11 June 2012) Autonomous Geographies Collective (2010) Beyond scholar activism: Making strategic interventions inside and outside the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 9(2):245275 Benton T (ed) (1996) The Greening of Marxism. New York: Guilford Cause 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 Studies 11(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, A DeLeon, 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 13 Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell Heathcott 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. Antipode this issue Jun N (2011) Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum May T (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructualist Anarchism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

10

Antipode

Morgan W (2005) Where they retreat, we must advance: Building dual power. The Northeastern 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: Guilford Olson J (2009) Between infoshops and insurrection: US anarchism, movement building, and the racial order. http://www.anarchiststudies.org/node/313 (last accessed 11 June 2012) Pistolero (2012) Nihilism as strategy. http://pistolsdrawn.org/nihilism-as-strategy/ (last accessed 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. Antipode this issue Schmidt M and van der Walt L (2009) Black Flame: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press Smith N (1991) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell The Free Association (2011) Moments of Excess: Movements, Protest, and Everyday Life. Oakland: PM Press Various (2012) The University is Ours! A Conference on Struggles Within and Beyond the Neoliberal University. Toronto, 2729 April. http://torontoedufactory.wordpress.com (last accessed 11 June 2012)

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.