Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

...some individualist anarchists in this vein even reject the idea of revolution, and instead propose what they call insurrection instead. Insurrection being the idea that an undermining of hierarchies can be achieved by enough individuals refusing to participate under them. This idea being woefully unfounded, as in the history of movements for social change, individual action has never brought about significant change.

in the history of my life, the only significant forces that i ever appreciated as positive were actual people, acting as themselves, often in contradiction to the social organizations they were compelled to participate in. Collectivities have only rarely brought light to my path, and only when they were constituted by relatively free people.

What this would entail is the drafting of a simple set of universal rules for the population which would clearly set the tone for liberation of the people, basic provisions for the day to day maintenance of a society, as well as provisions for the sort of governmental system people would be using under the revolutionary society that we wish to establish. These rules would then be immediately in place upon a popular revolution, making clear revolutionary intentions, providing a sense of direction, and immediately setting the foundations of the revolutionary society which we shall create.

You mean, laws, and people to enforce them? Dios mio, is this a bit disturbing or what?

First, by coming to a consensus of such things before the revolution it will dramatically reduce any possible infighting on such topics, allowing focus on further securing the revolution.

The idea appears to be, we will just stop disagreeing or having different desires, and will have a unitary consensus permanently. even as people die and drift apart from such an organization, and others are born and join in...

Sounds pretty similar to the constitution of USA, never changed in over 200 years. As in, this sounds like a government, and the worst kind too.

First, is creating directly democratic communes, comprising up to about 150 households.

150...uh, 150? Where did this number come from lol?

It makes me think of the Matrix reloaded, when the architect is telling neo he needs to collective 14 females & 7 males to re-establish Zion lol

As such the non-comprehensive list of rights which federationism recognizes as universally applicable is:

OK. So, rights, these are things which the state...or i guess in this case, "federation", it cannot do this to an individual. This is the definition, yes?

There is no way to conceive of "rights", then, without conceiving first of a state that might theoretical trample on them. It has not a purpose, otherwise, for a right is simply a prohibition of the state from engaging in a certain type of violence. It is a list of rules for a state. In other words, rights are laws, and they don't have any place in anarchy because anarchy doesn't have central formations where such a "right" would have any meaning. There is no possibility of deprivation of the right to free speech among anarchists, because nobody can or will censor someone using the power of the nonexistant law.

It is good to have points of unity, but there is active harm in trying to come up with an immutable or universal list of these points of unity. And using the terminology of "rights" is bizzare, confusing, and where the seeds of the state are sown.

A BETTER WORLD WILL COME WHEN WE LIBERATE OURSELVES!!!

Agreed. Kill the cop in your head, Lilly May. I shoot at mine every day that I can.

8

OdiousOutlaw wrote

150...uh, 150? Where did this number come from lol?

Dunbar's number, most likely.

This entire thing has triggered a fight-or-flight response in me.

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

If this is accurate, then it is all the more disturbing, because it is referring to 150 households not individuals.

Therefore, these "fundamental units of society" are supposed to be scientifically designed to be just bigger than the average person can manage to maintain functional relationships with. therefore by its own supposition, the basic unit of the decision making process is designed to reaffirm majoritarian logic by lumping together groups of people who have met, but don't really know each other. Thus resulting in voting, and factionalism, on the micro scale to the macro.

Fight or flight indeed. I can't imagine this can be seriously presented as an anarchist framework or discourse.

8

OdiousOutlaw wrote

That's not even getting into how this would even be enforced.

Like, yeah, they've demonstrated that they want anarcho-laws, anarcho-courts, and anarcho-cops; they'd also have to have some form of population/migrant control in mind, otherwise there'd be no point in bringing it up.

They'd need some sort of...line or something to determine what is and what isn't their territory. Something that they could expand should whatever means of population control they employ fail. They'd also need a name to call this territory...maybe a common culture to unite this population.

If only I had the words for what they'd want!

6

ziq OP wrote (edited )

You mean, laws, and people to enforce them? Dios mio, is this a bit disturbing or what?

Check out the sequel.

Federationism is in favor of using a system similar to that of the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War. Prisoners should be placed in an open plan prison, and given free reign to do as they wish so long as they do not try to escape. Prisoners are to be given all rights befitting their status as people worthy of dignity. They are to be able to receive communication and visitors, and given a reasonable amount of privacy. The point is not punishment but temporary containment until such time as they no longer can pose a threat.

The focus of treatment of prisoners should be towards a program of deradicalization away from their reactionary ideas. Focusing on the resocialization of prisoners towards more supportive and accepting communities, as well as emotional outlets and therapy. Prisoners are to be understood to have been misguided by an exploitative and repressive state apparatus, and are in need of respect and assistance, not revenge or punishment.

Suspected war criminals are to be held in similar accommodations and given a fair trial of their actions as soon as possible. Prisoners found guilty of war crimes are to be held indefinitely until it can be said with certainty that they are no longer a threat to others. It is not the place of any justice society to sentence any person that does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of others to death.

Even has step by step instructions for how federationists should "have fun":

For meetings which are specifically about politics, then there should be sorts of enjoyable games which act to help remove the idea of needing hierarchy. Games should build trust between members, and have them learn more about each other on a personal level. Games should be varied to prevent members getting tired of them. Such games could include finding out basic ideas of what motivates and demotivates your members, which can in turn help members figure out what praxis they want to focus on; the use of puzzles that require cooperation to solve, which helps put members in cooperative mindset; a simple scavenger hunt, just for fun; and having a notebook in which members can share books, ideas, or drawings they want others to know about, which can build up a collection of community interactions. Further, as a more long term game, members can be split up into teams and be asked to create a cooperative economy between the teams, introducing resources and rules as things move along that teams are asked to cooperate on in order to make sure everyone is getting their needs met. Such games will help break down the monotony of traditional politics and demonstrate the benefits of cooperation, mutual aid, and strong community bonds.

Most prescriptivist thing I've read.

And according to someone on reddit, apparently there's a prequel called the "Federationist Constitution" which essentially just replaces some words from the US constitution like 'state' with 'anarchism', but I can't find it.

5

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Prisoners should be placed in an open plan prison

lmao. "Should", maybe it's just me and my tendency agonize over every word choice that I make, but that word implies that they know that this won't be the case.

and given free reign to do as they wish so long as they do not try to escape.

"You can do whatever you want except the one thing that you'd want to do above all else."

Prisoners found guilty of war crimes are to be held indefinitely until it can be said with certainty that they are no longer a threat to others. It is not the place of any justice society to sentence any person that does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of others to death

But it somehow is the place of a justice society to hold them in a cage against their will for as long as that society sees fit. For life, if need be.

For meetings which are specifically about politics, then there should be sorts of enjoyable games which act to help remove the idea of needing hierarchy.

"Playin' kahoot with the comrades during the 5 PM meeting after my 4 hour workday." Doesn't sound terrible, but the way they wrote it makes it sound like those people who encourage having a pool table or something in the break room but get mad at you for using it during work hours.

3

tabby wrote

And according to someone on reddit, apparently there's a prequel called the "Federationist Constitution" which essentially just replaces some words from the US constitution like 'state' with 'anarchism', but I can't find it.

I think I remember that. Same person that was talking about colonizing space or a different person?

3

Hopium wrote

6

kin wrote

I m astonished by Anarchist Library publishing this

7

celebratedrecluse wrote

It's a pretty loose set of criteria to be included, which i am actually grateful for. But, there are always downsides, and unpopular takes, in such catalogs.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

kin wrote

I know and don't mind, I usually find the tangent content there interesting. But this manifest is just bad written, now I got that a zoomer teen is behind this and it's ok. But let not pretend that this is actually not a crude mix of US liberal politics posing as a anarchist pamphlet

3

putridcod87 wrote

lilly may, was it you who wrote that recent post on IDG? maybe ive just unmasked the anon, does that make me a snitch?

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

point by point “takedowns” are pretty worthless. If you’re going to respond at least put in bare minimum work and write a counter essay. Lazy

−2

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Some writings just ain't worth a whole essay.

Sure, you could write 5, 10, 15, or 20 page polemic on the NazAn manifesto, but who would even waste their time doing that when you can just write, at most, a paragraph detailing why their ideology makes no sense?

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Don’t know what NazAn is, but it is very obvious that any serious political ideology, such as ‘federationist’ anarchism with a long and cherished history can not be refuted in a series of point by point zingers. People write whole papers, whole books on these disputes, this twitter whining is not worth anybody’s time to read.

−2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Don’t know what NazAn is

Nationalist Anarchist.

but it is very obvious that any serious political ideology, such as 'federationist’ anarchism with a long and cherished history

'federationist’ anarchism doesn't have a long, cherished history, though; it's literally just some mish-mash of already existing ideas. Its manifesto isn't even a year old and it's the only text in the Anarchist library to have the category of "federationism". Marxism, by comparison, has more than 100, Nationalism has 69, Democratic Socialism has 12. Were federationism not new, it would have more texts both critical and supportive of it.

can not be refuted in a series of point by point zingers.

There's literally no reason for why it can't. If there was one, you've yet to provide it.

People write whole papers, whole books on these disputes, this twitter whining is not worth anybody’s time to read.

So what? The idea that a critique has no worth because it doesn't reach some arbitrary standard of length is too narrow-minded to take seriously.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

'federationist’ anarchism doesn't have a long, cherished history, though; it's literally just some mish-mash of already existing ideas.

From the article I was under the assumption it was just a reiteration of the same ideological stance that organizations like the FAI and many other early anarchist organization.

There's literally no reason for why it can't. If there was one, you've yet to provide it.

Because it can’t adequately disprove any points made by the essay which is being targeted for point-by-point “commentary”. Nor can it propose any sort of counter-position which would be necessary to create constructive discourse.

So what? The idea that a critique has no worth because it doesn't reach some arbitrary standard of length is too narrow-minded to take seriously.

It isn’t about arbitrary length, obviously. It’s about having enough worthwhile content to make the discourse meaningful or useful at all. This twitter thread is literally a waste of time to read, for anybody, it’s useless, it’s noise in the void.

0