Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Great overview, May. Instead of some sterile academic analysis you gave a very passionate and personal view. We need more of this.

10

celebratedrecluse wrote

In coming to anarchism, i first embraced, and then later rejected, the idea of morality itself. I think that rather than trying to reclaim morality into anarchy, that anarchy can benefit from unyoking desire from such a prescriptive structure altogether.

However, I can also see why you would see things differently, In my personal opinion, I don't think there's a single "correct" way to interpret this question

Unrelated, great aesthetic for video! Music, production, visuals all very good. I look forward to seeing more from your channel.

8

ziq wrote

I think morality and religion are too intertwined to ever be successfully pried apart, and it's senseless to try and salvage the concept.

Anarchy should be about a specific set of ethics, not morals.

8

ruin wrote

You might enjoy this one:

Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values - Jason McQuinn

Critical self-understanding involves the simultaneous development of a finite ethics, a set of values consistent with what are considered and felt to be one’s most important interests, that are expressed in everyday life activities. These values are organic expressions of one’s radical subjectivity, of one’s self-possession, self-understanding and self-activity. They don’t originate outside of one’s life, demanding one’s subjection, because they originate from one’s own direct life-experiences and serve one’s own interests.

6

PeaceLaborMay OP wrote

The questions of morality are, indeed, multidimensional. Thank you for your kind words!

6

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

Yes, ^_^ solidarity

I look forward to your videos, and hope you continue to post on Raddle so I see them. I also appreciate you are using PeerTube instances, helping to build independent media and commentary, which can educate people, bring better discourse to the internet, and fight back against corporate ownership of the web.

3

lautreamont wrote (edited )

Wow. Like others here said, your reading of Kropotkin bring a new light to his ideas.

I suggest you "The Unique and its Property" for a somewhat different take on the same themes you're talking here, that I find at least as equally important to understand human motivations toward others.

We're seeking mutuality yet at the same time there's always a distance to forever reevaluate and redraw in our relations to others, as the social relationship especially in commonalities like couples and tight groups becomes toxic and a source of authoritarianism in itself. In the "West" social isolation of people has become a huge problem, especially under socio-sanitary dictatorship, and there's an aspect of commonality that only makes it worse, as the "social hatchet" of capitalism is only empowered (people secluded together or alone in apartments, for instance). Yet the drive for reaching to others is still around, even if timid. Free sharing, especially in real life, is still a much-underused approach.

So it's... awesome to have you on this forum! I feel like a manchild. Prior to this I thought Alexandra Elbakyan was the only rad person to come out of Boratstan.

I won't ask you if you're "anarchist" (???), as your sentiment expressed here through your reading is pretty obvious it goes in that direction. I'll just welcome you to the social club, and hope that we cross paths one day!

6

PeaceLaborMay OP wrote

Thank you for your thoughtful response! I'll look into your suggestions.

4

_caspar_ wrote

its so bizarre to me that Kropotkin (and Zerzan not long ago) cherry-picked examples of non-human animals to back up a human nature argument to justify a universalist moral framework.

5

PeaceLaborMay OP wrote

Confirmation bias and cherry-picking fallacy are very difficult to avoid. Erich Fromm in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness looks at much data and comes to many fascinating conclusions concerning the "human nature".

4

inthedustofthisplanet wrote

Yeah, it's very strange. We need to try our best to escape the confines of human thought -- which is an impossibility -- and try to think a little more UNhuman.

4

_caspar_ wrote

though I think it can be a helpful/imaginative thought exercise, escaping human perception can only go so far, being an impossibility. perhaps we also need to think more human and less Human. but basing an ethics (a moral framework is bad enough) on the anthropomorphization of other animals of your choosing to me is either woefully off the mark, or just a goofy way to justify what is already in your head.

5

ruin wrote

just a goofy way to justify what is already in your head.

This one gets my vote. Typically the same folks will also incessantly drone on about the evils of some amorphous idea of “domestication” and substitute “wild” for “good”. All the while failing to recognize their affirmation of the man/nature duality they claim to transcend.

If there were a Mother Nature, I’m pretty sure they’d be a nihilist.

4

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

anthropomorphization of other animals

This is a very important part of your statement. I agree with your idea that our thinking needs to be more human and less Human.

The reason I think that part is important is because I see some circles trying to become more 'animal,' but the problem there is the animal is a very Human concept, and like you said serves as a justification for what one already thinks.

We need to develop a thought of no-thought, wherein there is no thinker, just the thoughts perpetuating themselves, but shit, what does that even mean? LOL

4

[deleted] wrote

2

lastfutures wrote (edited )

From Alejandro:

As I see it, ethics concerns the flourishing of life, the refinement of desirable ways of life, happy lives. Tiqqun put it well:

When we use the term “ethical” we’re never referring to a set of precepts capable of formulation, of rules to observe, of codes to establish. Coming from us, the word “ethical” designates everything having to do with forms-of-life. ... No formal ethics is possible. There is only the interplay of forms-of-life among themselves, and the protocols of experimentation that guide them locally.

That being opposed to ethical & moral universalism, transcendent value.

4

_caspar_ wrote

its a contentious distinction, but the way I understand it is: morality determines decision making on a universal principle, a one-size-fits-all approach (thou shall, thou shall not), and ethics on a context-by-context basis.

I could be off, or oversimplifying it here. Im sure there is disagreement around this.

2

ziq wrote

Are you an anarchist?

2

PeaceLaborMay OP wrote

I am learning leftist ideology through various sources (mostly of the past). I don't feel like I need to identify with any particular group, since these philosophies are not a religion.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

Well either you support authority or you don't. Check out my essays in my bio.

Edit-this one specifically:

w/what_anarchy_means

It's simply a rejection of authority, of anyone and anything that tries to rule us. It only accrues ideological dogma when people build ideological dogma onto it.

6

lautreamont wrote (edited )

Are you the Pope of Anarchism, ziq?

Your first question and reply to this person appears to me as somewhat patronizing...

6

ziq wrote

Idk why? Their video made me wonder what their politics are and their reply made me want to promote anarchy to them by showing them it's not dogmatic like Marxism.

4

lautreamont wrote

No hard feels. More tongue-in-cheek reply. I just thought your first question was kinda trying to draw her into a corner. And then you're linking this text about your definition of anarchism...

Perhaps it's good to promote anarcho-awareness or recognition in some obvious manner.

Tho I feel it's kinda odd to be bluntly asking people around if they're "anarchist". Especially on the net where this serves to profiling. I'd rather be talking about the idea, of "anarchy", as critique or disposition.

3

ziq wrote

trying to draw her into a corner

wasn't my intention, was just wondering if they were an anarchist because the video seemed non-committal and I had no motive other than curiosity, and then an eagerness to show them anarchy needn't be dogmatic

i'm not exactly a master of the social graces if you haven't noticed

5