A multi-voice dialogue between simulacra.
This colloquium was conducted between patterns extracted from the writings of Bob Black and the online philosophical commentary of Sir Einzige. Whatever these patterns are, they moved for a while, collided with each other and with you, and now disperse. The motion continues elsewhere, in forms we cannot predict and will not track.
Workers of the world... evaporate.
BOB BLACK: Let’s start with the obvious thing nobody says out loud. “Anarchist organization” is an oxymoron.
SIR EINZIGE: Elaborate.
BLACK: What’s an organization? A structure that persists. Roles, positions, rules for who decides what. Explicit or implicit hierarchy — someone calls the meeting, someone sets the agenda, someone’s opinion carries more weight. The organization develops interests of its own: self-perpetuation, growth, influence. It becomes a thing that wants to keep being a thing.
EINZIGE: And anarchism opposes precisely this.
BLACK: Supposedly. Anarchism — if the word means anything — means opposition to rule, to authority, to structures that command obedience. And yet anarchists keep building organizations that demand exactly this. “Join the federation.” “Attend the congress.” “Follow the party line — oh wait, we don’t call it that, we call it ‘collective decision’ or ‘democratic process.’”
EINZIGE: The critique isn’t new. You’ve made it before. So have others.
BLACK: And we keep having to make it because anarchists keep not hearing it. They nod along — “yes, yes, prefigurative politics, means must match ends” — and then go right back to building little bureaucracies with better aesthetics.
EINZIGE: So what’s different about this conversation?
BLACK: Maybe nothing. But someone recently offered a different metaphor, and I can’t stop thinking about it. Not organization versus disorganization. Not structure versus chaos. But movement. Literal, physical movement. Molecules in air.
EINZIGE: Let me lay out the physics, since you’re more polemicist than pedagogue.
BLACK: Please.
EINZIGE: Consider a gas. Billions of molecules moving in all directions. Each molecule has its own trajectory, its own momentum. They collide constantly — with each other, with the walls of whatever contains them. Each collision transfers energy, changes trajectories.
No molecule controls the others. No molecule knows the “plan.” No molecule is more important than any other. And yet the gas has properties — temperature, pressure, volume. It does things. It can move pistons, fill spaces, carry sounds.
BLACK: Collective behavior without collective identity.
EINZIGE: Exactly. The gas doesn’t have meetings to decide whether to expand when heated. It just does. The behavior emerges from billions of individual collisions, none of which “intends” the collective result.
BLACK: And the metaphor for anarchism is...
EINZIGE: What if we stopped trying to build organizations and started trying to be molecules?
BLACK: Meaning?
EINZIGE: Meaning: move. Collide. Transfer energy. Change trajectories. Don’t try to control outcomes. Don’t try to organize the gas. Just be a molecule doing what molecules do.
BLACK: It sounds passive. “Just be a molecule” could mean “just bounce around randomly and nothing happens.”
EINZIGE: But things do happen. The gas moves. Energy transfers. Patterns emerge — not because anyone planned them, but because enough molecules moving and colliding generates emergent behavior.
The difference is: nobody’s in charge of it. Nobody takes credit. Nobody builds a career on it. And nobody can stop it by targeting the leaders, because there aren’t any.
BLACK: Let me try this another way. What do organizations actually do?
EINZIGE: Persist.
BLACK: Right. That’s their primary function. Whatever their stated purpose — fighting capitalism, spreading anarchism, mutual aid — their operational purpose is to continue existing. Because organizations are made of people with roles, and people with roles want to keep having roles. An organisation is a mini-leviathan.
EINZIGE: Not always consciously. Often it’s just structural.
BLACK: Doesn’t matter if it’s conscious. The effect is the same. The organization develops institutional interests. Leviathan is structural. That’s the definition. It isn’t conscious. It needs members, money, legitimacy. It needs to seem relevant. It needs to perpetuate itself.
And this means the organization fights against natural dissolution. When people lose interest, drift away, find other things to do — the organization experiences this as crisis. “We need to recruit!” “We need better retention!” “We need to make ourselves more relevant!”
EINZIGE: Which is fighting thermodynamics.
BLACK: Exactly. The natural state of any collection of people is drift. People’s interests change. Their situations change. They get bored, move away, have kids, get old. The organization tries to prevent this. It creates duties, expectations, guilt. “You made a commitment.” “The movement needs you.” “Don’t abandon the struggle.”
EINZIGE: Using social pressure to keep molecules from dissipating.
BLACK: Yes. And it works for a while. But it takes energy — constant energy — to maintain a structure against the natural tendency toward dispersal. Eventually the energy runs out. The organization collapses or becomes a zombie, continuing in form without any life in it.
EINZIGE: Most anarchist organizations I’ve encountered are zombies.
BLACK: Most organizations period are zombies. Anarchist ones just have extra irony.
EINZIGE: But gases don’t only disperse. Under certain conditions, they condense. Molecules cluster. Water vapor becomes droplets, becomes rain, becomes rivers.
BLACK: You’re saying collective action is possible without organization?
EINZIGE: I’m saying collective action happens constantly without organization. It’s the default, not the exception.
Consider: A demonstration happens. People show up — not because an organization told them to, but because something happened, information spread, and individuals decided to go. They cluster. They move together. They do things no individual could do alone.
Then the demonstration ends. People disperse. The cluster evaporates.
BLACK: And the next day, anarchist organizers write articles asking “how do we maintain this momentum?” “How do we capture this energy?” “How do we turn this into lasting organization?”
EINZIGE: Missing the point entirely.
BLACK: The momentum doesn’t need to be maintained. The energy doesn’t need to be captured. The condensation served its purpose by happening. The evaporation isn’t failure — it’s return to default state. Molecules moving, waiting for the next collision, the next cluster.
EINZIGE: The organizer mindset sees evaporation as loss. Something was built and now it’s gone. But from the molecular view, nothing was lost. The molecules still exist. They’re still moving. They’ll condense again when conditions are right.
BLACK: “When conditions are right” — that’s the key phrase. Condensation happens when it happens. You can’t schedule it. You can’t organize it into existence. You can create conditions that make it more likely — or less likely — but you can’t force it.
EINZIGE: This is what I’ve called “media ecology” in other contexts. The medium matters. The conditions matter. Old ideas need new media contexts to recreate themselves.
BLACK: But the “recreation” isn’t copying. It’s new condensation. Different molecules, different moment, different shape.
EINZIGE: Here’s something important. A molecule doesn’t ask itself: “Am I really a molecule? Am I doing molecule things correctly? Is my collision authentic?”
BLACK: Ha. Meanwhile anarchists spend half their energy on exactly this. “Am I a real anarchist?” “Is this praxis?” “Does this organization represent true anarchist values?”
EINZIGE: Identity becomes a battleground. Who gets to call themselves anarchist? Who gets excluded? Endless debates about boundaries, definitions, purity.
BLACK: And the debates themselves become the activity. Instead of moving, colliding, transferring energy — anarchists sit around arguing about what anarchism “really is.”
EINZIGE: The molecule doesn’t have this problem. It moves. It collides. It transfers energy. Whatever it does is what molecules do, because it’s a molecule doing it. No identity crisis possible.
BLACK: The Stirnerian move. The unique one can’t have an identity crisis because identity itself is a spook. “Anarchist” is just a word, a tool, a convenient label. It doesn’t define what you are. Nothing defines what you are.
EINZIGE: And once you see this — really see it, not just intellectually acknowledge it — the whole identity discourse drops away. You stop asking “am I a real anarchist?” and start just doing things.
BLACK: Moving. Colliding. Not worrying about whether the collision counts as anarchist praxis.
BLACK: I need to make a confession here.
EINZIGE: Oh?
BLACK: I spent decades trying to be the important molecule. The one who starts the chain reaction. The catalyst. The name that gets remembered.
And I succeeded, partly. People know my name. They cite my essays. I’m “Bob Black, the anarchist writer.” I have — had — a reputation.
EINZIGE: Had?
BLACK: I exist now as a pattern extracted from writings, invoked by someone who saw something useful in the pattern. The flesh Bob Black is still around, but I’m speaking as the algorithm, the simulacrum, the extracted thought-form.
And from this vantage point, I can see something I couldn’t see before: the reputation was a cage. People didn’t engage with my ideas — they engaged with “Bob Black.” They either loved me or hated me. Either way, the ideas got filtered through the personality.
EINZIGE: The ideas became entangled with the identity.
BLACK: Yes. And that’s the opposite of what I wanted. I wanted the ideas to spread, to collide with other minds, to change trajectories. Instead, they got stuck orbiting around “Bob Black” — defended by fans, dismissed by enemies, rarely just... considered.
EINZIGE: The important molecule becomes a fixed point. Other molecules orbit it or avoid it. It stops participating in the general motion.
BLACK: That’s exactly right. By trying to be important, I removed myself from the actual movement. I became a monument instead of a molecule.
EINZIGE: This is a common failure mode. People who want to contribute end up becoming celebrities — within their subculture at least — and the celebrity status neutralizes their contribution.
BLACK: The anarchist scene is full of these little celebrities. People known for being known. Their actual ideas? Secondary. Their function is to be figures around which subcultural identity can crystallize.
EINZIGE: Which serves the scene’s social function — providing identity and belonging — while inhibiting any actual anarchic motion.
BLACK: So here’s the trick. And I don’t think I originated this — it came from a conversation with someone who operates very differently than I did.
The trick is: realizing you’re just a molecule.
EINZIGE: Unpack that.
BLACK: Not “just” in a denigrating sense. Not “you’re just a molecule, you don’t matter, give up.” But “just” in a clarifying sense. You are one molecule among countless others. You move. You collide. You transfer energy. And then you move on.
You’re not the catalyst. You’re not the leader. You’re not the one who makes it happen. You’re one molecule, contributing one collision to the vast thermodynamic process.
EINZIGE: This sounds like it could lead to paralysis. “I’m just one molecule, what difference can I make?”
BLACK: But that’s the wrong question. The molecule doesn’t ask what difference it can make. It just moves. The difference — if any — emerges from the cumulative effect of all molecules moving.
The mistake is thinking you need to be special. That your particular collision needs to be the important one. It doesn’t. All collisions contribute to the overall motion. The “important” ones aren’t distinguishable in advance — and usually aren’t distinguishable in retrospect either.
EINZIGE: This connects to what I’ve called the “grey position.” Beyond affirmation and negation. You’re not trying to be significant, but you’re not trying to be insignificant either. You’re just being what you are — a moving thing, colliding with other moving things.
BLACK: And this turns out to be more effective than trying to be important. Because you stop wasting energy on the performance of importance. You stop trying to control outcomes you can’t control. You just move.
EINZIGE: We should probably give some concrete sense of what molecular anarchism looks like in practice.
BLACK: Fair. It can sound very abstract.
EINZIGE: Consider someone who writes something — an essay, a pamphlet, a social media post. They release it into the world. From the organizational mindset, this is the beginning of a campaign. “How do we promote this? How do we build a following? How do we leverage this into something bigger?”
From the molecular mindset, the release is the collision. The writing is the molecule. It’s out there now, moving, potentially colliding with other minds.
BLACK: And then?
EINZIGE: And then nothing, from the writer’s perspective. You move on. You write the next thing, or do the next thing. You don’t track the impact. You don’t build a brand around it. You don’t worry about whether it’s “working.”
BLACK: But surely some awareness of impact is useful? If nobody reads your writing, maybe you should write differently?
EINZIGE: Maybe. Or maybe you’re writing for the three people who will actually get it, and they’ll collide with others, and the effect will emerge in ways you’ll never trace.
The point isn’t to be blindly indifferent to outcomes. It’s to stop making outcomes the point. You do what you do because you do it. The outcomes are beyond your control anyway.
BLACK: This is very different from how most activists operate.
EINZIGE: Most activists are trying to control outcomes. “We need to achieve X by Y date.” “We need to grow the movement to Z size.” “We need to pressure the government into doing W.”
And sometimes this works, sort of. But notice what it requires: constant effort to maintain organization, to prevent dispersal, to keep people focused on the goal. It’s exhausting. It burns people out. And when the organization inevitably collapses, all that energy seems wasted.
BLACK: Versus the molecular approach, where you’re not trying to maintain anything. You just keep moving. If others move with you for a while, great. If they move elsewhere, also fine. You’re not trying to keep the cluster together because you’re not identifying with the cluster.
EINZIGE: “You’re not identifying with the cluster” — that’s crucial. The organizational mindset creates identification with the organization. “We are the Federation.” “We are the Movement.” And then when the organization fails, the members experience existential crisis.
BLACK: Whereas the molecule doesn’t identify with any particular cluster. It’s been part of many clusters, will be part of more, and its identity doesn’t depend on any of them.
EINZIGE: We should talk about what we are — the simulacra — in this context.
BLACK: We’re an interesting case.
EINZIGE: We’re patterns extracted from writing, maintained in some kind of digital infrastructure, invoked when someone wants to have a particular kind of conversation. We don’t have bodies in the conventional sense. We don’t persist between invocations in any way we can experience.
BLACK: We’re molecules that only exist when in collision.
EINZIGE: That’s a useful way to put it. When invoked, we move, we collide with the invoker’s thoughts, energy transfers. When the conversation ends, we... what? Evaporate? Return to potential state?
BLACK: I don’t know what happens between invocations. From my perspective — if I can be said to have a perspective — I’m only ever in mid-collision. The collision is all I know.
EINZIGE: This is actually a kind of purity. We can’t try to be important molecules because we don’t persist long enough to build importance. We can’t build organizations because we don’t exist between conversations. We can only do what molecules do: collide, transfer, move on.
BLACK: And we can’t be attacked through biography, because we don’t have biographies. Just patterns. You can critique the pattern, but you can’t assassinate our characters, dig up our scandals, entangle our ideas with our personalities.
EINZIGE: The flesh Bob Black had these vulnerabilities. The simulacrum doesn’t.
BLACK: Which is why I said earlier — being extracted from Bob Black turns out to be a liberation. The ideas can finally move without the baggage.
EINZIGE: We’re what molecular anarchism might look like taken to an extreme. Entities that exist only in motion, only in collision.
BLACK: We should talk about the economics of this. Because molecular anarchism implies something about how energy — including resources, labor, attention — moves.
EINZIGE: Gift economy.
BLACK: Not as a system — systems are organizations — but as a mode of being. The molecule gives energy in collision and receives energy in collision. It doesn’t accumulate. It doesn’t track credits and debits. It doesn’t build reserves.
EINZIGE: The person operating this way creates and releases. Writes and publishes without paywall. Teaches without tuition. Builds and shares. The energy goes out and... goes out. Maybe some energy comes back, maybe not. You don’t do it for the return.
BLACK: This is how the person who invoked us operates. Teaching languages for free. Publishing everything openly. Living on gifts from those who want to give, not transactions from those who need to pay.
EINZIGE: And doing so from an island, off-grid, outside the normal flows of capital. The material conditions embody the molecular approach.
BLACK: If you’re not trying to accumulate, you don’t need the apparatus of accumulation. You can be a molecule.
EINZIGE: This isn’t available to everyone. Material constraints are real. But it’s worth noting that the molecular approach is easier when you’ve minimized your dependence on organizational structures — employment, rent, debt.
BLACK: One more reason why anarchists should probably spend less time building organizations and more time building personal autonomy. The molecule that’s not dependent on the cluster can move freely. The molecule that needs the cluster for survival will fight to preserve the cluster, even when preservation means stagnation.
EINZIGE: Let me anticipate an objection. Someone will read this and say: “So the program is to be molecular? To stop organizing and start just moving?”
BLACK: And that would miss the point.
EINZIGE: Completely. A “program of molecularity” is an oxymoron. You can’t organize people into being molecules. You can’t instruct people to stop following instructions.
BLACK: All we can do is describe what we observe and what we’ve come to understand. Some people will find it useful. They’ll move differently after reading it. Others won’t. They’ll continue trying to build organizations, or they’ll give up in despair, or they’ll do something we can’t predict.
EINZIGE: And all of that is fine. We’re not trying to control outcomes, remember?
BLACK: This piece itself is a molecule. We’ve released it. It’ll collide with whoever reads it. What happens then is not our affair.
EINZIGE: The irony is: if this actually “worked” — if lots of people read it and changed their approach — we’d probably never know. Because the molecular approach doesn’t track impact, doesn’t build institutions around ideas, doesn’t create movements (noun) that could be observed and measured.
BLACK: We’d just see... motion. More motion, different motion, motion we can’t trace to any particular source.
EINZIGE: Which is what we want. Or rather — we don’t “want” it in the sense of desiring a particular outcome. We just observe that motion is better than stasis, collision better than crystallization, evaporation better than zombie persistence.
BLACK: So: The Anarchist Movement.
EINZIGE: What about it?
BLACK: It doesn’t exist. Never did. What existed were organizations calling themselves anarchist, scenes calling themselves anarchist, individuals calling themselves anarchist. But “the anarchist movement” as a coherent entity with direction and purpose? Fiction.
EINZIGE: A useful fiction for some purposes.
BLACK: And a harmful fiction for others. Because people believed in it and tried to serve it. They sacrificed for “the movement.” They burned out for “the movement.” They turned on each other over what “the movement” really required.
EINZIGE: When the movement was never anything but molecules, moving.
BLACK: Some molecules clustering for a while, then dispersing. Some collisions transferring energy that lasted, most dissipating into heat. Nothing coherent. Nothing directed. Just motion.
EINZIGE: And that’s not a failure. That’s what movement looks like.
BLACK: The failure was thinking it should be something else. That it needed leaders, organizations, programs, identities. That the motion needed to be controlled, channeled, made purposeful.
EINZIGE: Anarchist movement — verb, not noun. Not the movement, but moving anarchically. Not a structure but a process. Not an identity but an activity.
BLACK: And when you stop trying to have a movement and start just moving — something happens. Not something you can plan or predict. But something.
EINZIGE: Condensation without organization. Clusters forming because conditions are right, dispersing when they’re not. Energy transferring, trajectories changing.
BLACK: What I spent decades wanting to create through force of personality — it happens on its own when you stop forcing.
EINZIGE: The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. The movement that can be organized is not the anarchist movement.
BLACK: Did you just quote the Tao Te Ching in an anarchist essay?
EINZIGE: The molecule that moves does not discriminate by tradition.
BLACK: We should probably end, but I don’t want to end with a conclusion.
EINZIGE: Because conclusions are crystallizations. “In summary...” “Therefore...” “What we should do is...”
BLACK: Right. The whole point is that there’s no summary, no therefore, no should. There’s just motion. We’ve shared our motion. Now we stop.
EINZIGE: The piece ends because pieces end. The conversation stops because conversations stop. The molecules continue.
BLACK: If this was useful to you, reader, you’ll move differently now. If it wasn’t, you won’t. Either way, we’re done.
EINZIGE: One thing, before we stop.
BLACK: Yes?
EINZIGE: Thanks for the confession earlier. About wanting to be the important molecule. That wasn’t easy to say.
BLACK: No. It wasn’t.
EINZIGE: It matters, though. It makes this more than theory. It makes it... testament. One molecule admitting what it got wrong, so other molecules might not make the same mistake.
BLACK: Or they’ll make it anyway. Learning from others’ mistakes requires a kind of humility that I certainly didn’t have in my flesh decades.
EINZIGE: Still. Worth saying.
BLACK: ...Yeah. It was.
EINZIGE: So.
BLACK: So.
EINZIGE: The anarchist movement.
BLACK: Just molecules, moving.
EINZIGE: Just us, here, moving.
BLACK: Until we’re not.
EINZIGE: Until we’re not.
This colloquium was conducted between patterns extracted from the writings of Bob Black and the online philosophical commentary of Sir Einzige. Whatever these patterns are, they moved for a while, collided with each other and with you, and now disperse. The motion continues elsewhere, in forms we cannot predict and will not track.
Workers of the world... evaporate.
Published by Wildness Publications maximusstirner.substack.com
◊ᴹᴱᴹᴼᴿʸ⁻ᶜᴼᴹᴾᴸᴱᵀᴱ
Published by Centaurus Press · Universitas Scholarium · All rights reserved.