Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

_caspar_ wrote

the "Overview" section (aside from Emma) is all socialist/communist class struggle oriented, and even includes non-anarchist Chomsky.

shouldn't there be a less biased intro for folks interested in anarchist praxis?

6

[deleted] wrote

2

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

I disagree. I think what someone believes matters quite alot, as it frames the story. a story has been told for many years that Chomsky's perspective is what anarchism either looks like, or should look like. this recuperative effect conflates anarchism with Chomsky's brand of democratic socialism, or maybe at his more radical moments, a sympathy with anarcho-syndicalism. because of his clout within the academy, various media outlets, and publishers, the myth has been able to propagate to the extent that he has become "the world’s most famous anarchist who isn’t one." - from Bob Black's review of "On Anarchism" (and Chomsky's position in general) which explains this myth in detail.

the problem I see with having that text in an intro to anarchist ideas list, is that it further propagates this myth.

thanks for offering to add suggestions, Ill try and think of some. /u/subrosa offered some good ones.

4

_caspar_ wrote

I feel these are good introductions to anarchist thought for the "Overview":

Anarchism by Voltairine de Cleyre poetically breaks down different tendencies of the time, then describes her own

What is an Anarchist? by Émile Armand is another older, but eerily relevant take

The Anarchist Tension by Alfredo M. Bonanno is listed under "Further Reading" but really belongs in "Overview," as it sums up very well the anarchist position in the post-industrial era.

maybe someone knows a good contemporary intro that critically takes the internet age into account?

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

ziq wrote

Haha this "abide by my demands or you're an authoritarian" shtick is hilarious. Keep it up :8)

3

[deleted] wrote

4

ziq wrote

Each of those essays came about from convos on this site. My process is to have a long convo with people (especially anarchy noobs) where I answer questions and then edit my side of the convo into the first draft of an essay, post the essay to f/anarchism, which creates another convo as people ask more questions and offer feedback, then I take all that and add it to the next draft. Then I link it on reddit or anews and get more engagement, which leads to the final draft.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

ziq wrote (edited )

This is an anonymous online space, not a commune. Any random troll could easily make 30 accounts and use them to vote for an all-Stalin list. Democracy on the internet is like a well bucket with no bottom.

The simple reality is we're not equals. Some people in the space do a whole lot, while others are lurkers who do nothing, or newcomers who have a burst of activity for a week and then disappear never to be seen again. Those who haven't put in the time don't have any right to make an account and immediately dictate the content of the sidebar to people who have spent years working hard at curating the space.

You earn a say in how a space is run by contributing to it and building it up, not by showing up one day with a list of demands, insisting you be able to vote to remove the hard work of people who are actively engaged with the space and replace it with theory written by dead white men.

The people who do the work should absolutely be the people who manage the space, just like the editors and writers of an anarchist magazine get to decide what shows up in the magazine: not the readers who passively consume their content.

"The customer is always right" is a very capitalistic viewpoint, and it's essentially what you're doing here. It won't work because no one is paying me to use this site, quite the opposite in fact. I pay for everything month after month, I contribute the overwhelming majority of the original content, post about half of the links, start a big chunk of the conversations, and I do the majority of the admin work. As much as you'd like it to be true, this isn't an equal relationship. I'm not going to pretend we're all equal contributors just to placate ideological naivety.

The essays are part of the fabric of the site, they've been intimately informed by the site's green nihilist milieu, just as the wider anarchist sphere has been increasingly informed by the essays (see r/completeanarchy's sticky for instance).

Everything we've done here these past 4 years has been absorbed into the greater anarchist movement and taken it in new and interesting directions. Expecting us to do away with the fabric of the site overnight to meet the whims of one new user isn't reasonable. No essay by a historic anarchist can be as important as the ideas that were formed in these very pages by the people who inhabit this space.

It takes time to establish yourself in a new space, you can't reasonably expect everyone to change the fabric of the space to meet your personal notions of what anarchy should be. Removing everything we've created to suit your personal politics would only strip the forum of its unique identity and make it just another generic red circlejerk, indistinguishable from every left-space on reddit.

I think there are more accessible texts available

The sidebar has links to 3 different wikis: w/reading includes all kinds of literature and anyone can add to the list. w/anarchy101 are articles written by me and others for beginners that detail the basics of each anarchist school of thought and again, anyone can contribute to them if they're so inclined.

I really don't see how the 3rd w/ziq_essays wiki takes anything away from the other 2 wikis in the sidebar. Original content is what sets this site apart. The ideas the users of raddle have manifested over the years are collected for perpetuity in those essays.

These ideas, re-formatted into essays, are raddle's biggest contribution to the greater anarchist culture, and with any luck, our late night conversations analysing the ramifications of authority will outlive us all.

5

[deleted] wrote

4

[deleted] wrote

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you already can create a topic with the proposed voting. Nothing stops you. Maybe, enough people will participate.

1

insurrectobot wrote

nice work - good, non-sectarian overview of anarchist theory / ideas / etc...so sick of suggested reading lists that are basically just all ancom / syndicalist or platformist stuff.

6

ziq wrote

And then if you suggest some nihilist or post-left stuff in reply to a red list, you get attacked for it.

5

_caspar_ wrote

the entire list is fine for what it is (if I put on the nitpick hat, I would question where is TAZ, or anything by Bey/PLW?) but the "Overview" intro is largely what you seem to be sick of.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

nice. I prefer later crimethinc but this list is great. please add it to the wikis when you have time

4

[deleted] wrote

4

celebratedrecluse moderator wrote

not at this time, that is a mighty list. I would check out what others have put on the wiki (top left button links to it) for more inspiration if you are interested in expanding it. thank you for your labour

1

[deleted] wrote

3

RanDomino wrote

Early CrimethInc.: "Being homeless is revolutionary"

Later CrimethInc.: "Composite Positivity for Monoids

B. Traven

ABSTRACT

Let w be an injective curve equipped with an L-dependent group. It is well known that Lobachevsky’s conjecture is true in the context of planes. We show that is bounded by n′′. Is it possible to study freely non-elliptic categories? We wish to extend the results of [29] to matrices.

1 INTRODUCTION

It has long been known that every polytope is Huygens [37]. Is it possible to construct partially positive, bounded, natural fields? The work in [27, 27, 22] did not consider the stable case. A central problem in fuzzy topology is the extension of minimal categories. It is not yet known whether |O|=D, although [7] does address the issue of separability. In this context, the results of [27] are highly relevant. This reduces the results of [37] to a recent result of Davis [37]. Here, regularity is clearly a concern. In this context, the results of [27] are highly relevant. In [34, 10], it is shown that there exists a pseudo-freely invariant and connected integrable element. Therefore a useful survey of the subject can be found in [35]. In [19], the main result was the construction of stochastically pseudo-normal planes. E. Selberg’s construction of continuous elements was a milestone in arithmetic PDE. It was Turing who first asked whether continuously Monge, naturally pseudo-Perelman groups can be examined. Therefore recently, there has been much interest in the

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

eh, the early stuff is kinda cringe and for bored suburban middle class kids. but there's nothing wrong with writing to your audience

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

i agree actually, I was thinking of their newer books rather than the other content. for example, contradictionary was good

3

[deleted] wrote

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

there are so many things to read in this world, but perhaps at some point you will check it out and hopefully enjoy it :)

3

flipshod wrote (edited )

Excellent list. Under the violence and pacifism heading, let me suggest Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.

It's a powerfully written case for anarcho-pacifism and is the book that set Gandhi on his mission. (Also of course Tolstoy is kinda famous for being an enjoyable writer.)

4

Ganggang wrote

Are you even an anarchist? Your name is karlmarxsmouth. Why are you here telling us what we should be reading?

3

[deleted] wrote

5

Ganggang wrote

It’s a decent list actually but i feel like it’s someone coming to “teach the anarkids to read”. Like I resent the tone

3

[deleted] wrote

3

Ganggang wrote

The fact that you’re an anarchist makes me feel better about it. I’m just concerned I guess because of the new chapos. You’re alright

1

[deleted] wrote

0

suma wrote

I don't think you have a very good understanding of hierarchy. The people who made this community what it is have every right to shape its politics. They do the work everyday and receive nothing in return. Someone spending hundreds of hours writing introductory texts for the site isn't making hierarchy, they're making anarchy. Hierarchy doesn't = writing about anarchy.

Since you seem to be a communalist I feel I should point out anarchy isn't democracy. Democracy is just rule by propaganda. Anarchists aren't ruled by anyone.

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote

I'm sorry but this is starting to trend towards concern trolling.

A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. The "improvements" are almost exclusively intended to be less effective.

A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."

What exactly is your aim here, /u/KarlMarxsMouth? You've been making a lot of suggestions in only a few short days. I don't see how demanding ziq's writings not be on the side-bar is actually helpful or useful to the community.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote (edited )

What I'd like to see is the admins take more seriously the power they wield and stop pretending things will just magically work themselves out if we just trust their superior judgement.

That is really not what admining raddle is like at all. You're new here but there are years of history of us attacking admins and bringing out pitchforks and torches when they don't do what we want them to do. Admin work is dirty, thankless work here.

Edit to add: we have open moderation logs. You can see all of the moderation that happens. This keeps mods accountable for their actions.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

bloodrose wrote

Heck, there should be a system built in just to figure out what people want (hint: it's called voting).

Oh my god, I feel like I sound like I'm being a troll but may I suggest you read ziq's essay on democracy? https://raddle.me/wiki/democracy

I mean it sincerely. It encapsulates a lot of discussions we've had on this site about voting.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

[deleted] wrote

3

[deleted] wrote

3

[deleted] wrote

2

[deleted] wrote

3

_caspar_ wrote

what's really wild is that all this time and effort spent fussing over a link in a sidebar, and ushering folks to vote over it, you couldve had a lengthy discussion about anarchist ideas, or maybe about what to do in actual daily life.

not that it wouldve been a guaranteed good discussion, but hopefully it wouldve been something better than this.

4

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I really appreciate the passion you've invested to this site for two days you are here. Lots of good suggestions and I belive you sincerely interested in Raddle well-being.

But, I'm asking you to understend the situation we are currently in. From my pont of view, Raddle used to be rather small-ish and isolated-ish comunity with no fundamential changes for a long time. The recent chapo's migration brought a sensible ammount of uncertainty. Not saying we are afraid of changes, but instead, changes should be implemented with an accordance to our situation. (Isn't it too lib to say? Am I wrong?)

Anyway, ziq's essays being on the sidebar is such a minor issue that not worth all the fuss already happened here.

Thanks for your input, by the way.

1

[deleted] wrote

3

bloodrose wrote

I think this is a moment to make a choice

And why is now the moment? Why wasn't it the moment the years in the past we've had discussions about this? We've spent years on /f/meta reformulating our thoughts and ideas about how we'd like to see the site run. What is wrong with all of those sessions? Were those not valid? Are they only valid if you have a say?

I'm sorry but it sounds a lot like concern trolling again. And I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but I feel like you're nitpicking at stuff we've worked on for years with no real agenda except "concerns". What exactly are you going for here?

2

insurrectobot wrote

I think you are way off the mark and a little out of line with this comment - why shouldn't ziq's writings be there? what are these supposed 'hierarchy issues'?

2

bloodrose wrote

Most of ziq's essays were written to help the site or as part of convos on the site. They're almost an FAQ for /f/anarchism. It seems appropriate that they would be there.

4

Ganggang wrote

I can sort of agree really. Definitely ziqs writing is not the definitive work on anarchism. I don’t know if there should really be any recommended readings though. Everyone has an agenda whether they know it or not. And ultimately it’s not that hard to just google. Also I don’t really care though lol

1