Submitted by OdiousOutlaw in Anarchism
ziq wrote
people who think anarchy is a "goal" to "end hierarchy" and then dismiss it based on the impossibility of their wild misconception are ridic
[deleted] wrote
ziq wrote
yeah but I'm moving away from the 'struggle' language since it implies a deliberate suffering and piousness and depriving of happiness until some far-off material accomplishment has been achieved. I say '"unending strive for autonomy and self-determination" now instead of struggle.
OdiousOutlaw OP wrote
I get that; which is why I avoided any direct comparison between this absurdist take on anarchism and Camus' take on Sisyphus. The latter pertains to making the best out of a joyless, endless struggle. "Doing an anarchy" is far from joyless; it isn't difficult to imagine someone feeling content, liberated, or happy when acting in defiance of something or someone that would exert power over them whether that defiance takes the form of shoplifting, forming an affinity group, or killing a sovereign. The unending presence of hierarchy gifts every anarchist an opportunity to enjoy the act of defying it.
A_Boy_and_his_Bean wrote
I think Killing King Abacus had a good phrase, "Collective Self-Realization", realizing oneself and one's goals through their intersection, and free affinity, with others
BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote
Isn’t this basically what Marx said about communism? That it isn’t a set of goals and ideals to be realized, but the real movement to abolish the current state of things
ziq wrote
if he really wanted to abolish the current state of things he probably shouldn't have argued so strongly to uphold states, even going as far as to expel the anarchists from the International (in Bakunin's absence - he wasn't even in the country at the time) for desiring federations of self-governing workplaces and communes instead of states. Someone who would be that hell-bent on preserving state has no business claiming to want to abolish the system.
BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote
The Marxist understanding of the state is that of a neutral tool which can be used by any class.
ziq wrote
Did you maintain a straight face while typing that?
BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote
Yeah, I’m a marxist.
ziq wrote
So when Marx expels people for supporting self-governing workplaces and communes instead of states, you support that, right? Is it "neutral" to throw a spiteful tantrum and exile people for supporting self government? Is self government somehow not "neutral" but states are? And if the state is so "neutral" why did Marx refuse to entertain the idea of self governing communes because he decided they conflicted with his "neutral" concept of states?
BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote
I think that’s a very simplistic understanding of why the anarchists were kicked out of the first internationale. The internationale was a democratic entity and it decided on adopting the marxist perspective on building a successful social revolution. The anarchists, obviously, disagreed and subsequently left or were expelled.
Anarchism and Marxism are not ideologies which can coexist in the same organization. The debate and basic disagreements would paralyze it and force it into ineffectual academic arguments. This split was inevitable.
ziq wrote
A democratic entity that decided to cast out the anarchists while they weren't even present at the meeting? That was a democratic action? Marxists really are walking doublespeak vectors.
Since Bakunin and co were forced out due to their opposition to the state, you have no leg to stand on when claiming Marx had a different ("neutral") definition of states than everyone else in the world. Using your obtuse doublespeak definition, self governing communes would 100% qualify as "neutral states that work for every class", so Marx obviously wanted nothing to do with "neutral states" and in fact fully supported the actual states that he cast the anarchists out for opposing. He opposed self government and supported state rule. That was the whole reason they were expelled. Not because he has a different definition of "state" than the anarchists - he knew exactly what the anarchists were against and what he supported.
[deleted] wrote
willow wrote
over on the other site i commented that we should oppose all hierarchy, not just "justified hierarchy". someone replied that you create a hierarchy every time you pick up a rock from the ground, so clearly this is impossible and a ridiculous goal.
ziq wrote (edited )
lol so now the definition of hierarchy has been so watered down that it means doing literally anything
fucking libs will come up with any excuse to enable authority
ziq wrote
how many actual people do you know who understand anarchy?
[deleted] wrote
ziq wrote
I enjoy your seething resentment of my vast talents.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments