Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nadir wrote

Reply to comment by sadie_killer in Why anarchism isn't a popular idea? - Anarkismo by ziq

but that doesn't mean people are naturally anarchists

A person with their friends is an example of anarchy that most people just do naturally.
Things like:

  • what you do with your mates
  • how you and your mates make decisions as a group
  • the mutual aid of helping out a mate and not making it all a transaction
  • the freedom of association of deciding who your mates are

Some of that may be affected a little by capitalism or democracy or other nasty things, but for the most part it has been unchanged by archist developments.

Most people are natural anarchists, at least when they're with their friends.

[Domination and submission] in a non-sexy way, although probably the sexy ways too.

So as far as the sexy sort of domination goes, it's a different sort of thing. If you're with someone who you trust to back off if asked, and there is some understanding of limits and preferences from the outset, then it is not real domination. It's not like other sorts of actual sexual domination, It's just informed consensual sex.

8

sadie_killer wrote

oh, sorry, i get that, i meant anarchist as in explicitly anti-authoritarian* (but kept forcibly ignorant of the nature of things, brainwashed as transvot put it), rather than practicing anarchic organisation, if that makes sense. i almost edited to clarify just in case.

i'm struggling to reword what i meant in ways that don't sound hella icky even to myself (and similar to the linked article), so i'll just say that i'm talking in the spirit of the two posts up the chain that i was replying to, and was thinking about how it will have unfortunately made the establishment of civilisation (etc.) easier to achieve, and harder to undo.

as far as the sexy/non-sexy bit goes, i was originally just joking at the mention of dom/sub, but then realised that actually some of the ways in which dominance/submission provide relief and pleasure to a lot of people potentially originate in a reaction to the ways in which authority is imposed on us (taking/losing control and, as you say, trust, are fundamental to the entire thing), so at least it's got that going for it.

* not to say that that's a definition of anarchism, but just to illustrate the difference.

5

nadir wrote

I'm not sure I understand sorry.

Are you talking about a Capitalist Realism like false consciousness?

(Initially on reading your reply I thought that you might have meant the following, now I'm not sure.)
Without having the abstraction of anarchy to point to as a shared trait of all desirable activities and structures, communities will be less able to identify changes that reduce anarchy and so authority can creep in more easily? In that sense, not knowing about anarchism is a handicap and those that do know about it have a useful tool for identifying problematic things.

3

sadie_killer wrote

don't worry i'm sure it's my fault.

not really trying to say anything particularly deep or useful anyway.
i'll see if i can put together something coherent tomorrow when in a better headspace, or i'll just leave it there i think, sorry for the confusion.

3