Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

zoom_zip OP wrote

Their regressive notions all need to be rejected wholeheartedly by real anarchists

if anyone hasn't yet registered for their "real anarchist" certificate you can take the purity test at www.realanarchist.gov

15

existential1 wrote

IMO, the best comment in there is:

transhumanists are just stalinists in space

LMAO

15

zoom_zip OP wrote

gonna make a comment of real substance: within the tribal schisms of anarchy i definitely feel like i lean into ancom territory; i'm just not comfortable associating with people who pin their identities on a flag and call each other "comrade".

how do i form a set of beliefs without people trying to shuffle me into identity groups

14

GlangSnorrisson wrote

Your beliefs need not dictate who you associate with. And tbf reddit “anarchists” are a special kind of goofy.

There are plenty of people who share similar beliefs to yours without doing this kind of stuff, don’t worry!

14

moonlune wrote

Yeah if I only have anarchist friends i wouldn't have many friends... Which I don't... But they aren't anarchist anyways.

9

GlangSnorrisson wrote

Most of the people I love don’t know what anarchism is, but they’re all pretty anti-authoritarian personality-wise. To me that’s what matters, far more than political labeling.

11

ruin wrote

The Bob Blacks, the John Zerzan's, the Ziqs, the Wolfi Landstreicher's and the Ted Kaczynskis...

The ancom axis of evil?

14

allatseaa wrote

...Aragorn!, Ria Del Montana, Alejandro de Acosta, Bellamy Fitzpatrick, Layla AbdelRahim, Hakim Bey/PLW, the anonymous author of Desert, Earth First!, the ELF, the ALF... basically anyone who's ever said or done anything interesting ever.

12

allatseaa wrote

Seaweed. How did I forget Seaweed. Will never forget his anecdote on The Brilliant about sitting at a bookfair with some Earth First! Journals in front of him and some guy from NEFAC or Love & Rage or BRRN or whoever came up and shouted in his face 'YOU WANT MY GRANDMA TO DIE'

11

allatseaa wrote

EF!, ELF, ALF, FAI, CCF, ITS*... if there's one thing the Bookchinites can't stand, it's people who actually do something with their lives.

*I'm referring here to the first five years or so of ITS, when they were attacking scientists rather than humanity in general

6

ruin wrote

I don’t think you need the * for ITS if you take them at their word regarding the “indiscriminate” nature of their attacks.

That is to say, I understand their use of the word whether or not I agree with their targets/tactics.

7

allatseaa wrote (edited )

I was mostly just clarifying to avoid drama. My interpretation of ITS is that for the first seven or eight communiques they were comparable to the other groups named above. After that, when they started calling themselves Wild Reaction (and may have even started numbering their communiques from #1 again, I can't really remember now) they were quite distinct from FAI, CCF etc, who they'd previously signed joint declarations with. The Wild Reacion ITS is the ITS of the Atassa journals, who I definitely wouldn't put in a list with EF!, ELF et al. Not because they're any less interesting, just because they're not part of the same sphere.

6

ruin wrote

That’s all fair. The drama around even referencing ITS, WR, and eco extremism is unfortunate.

7

[deleted] wrote

−8

allatseaa wrote

You're referring to the ITS years that I clearly excluded. Fuck off.

6

[deleted] wrote

−3

allatseaa wrote

ITS is an ideology? wtf are you talking about?

7

[deleted] wrote

−4

allatseaa wrote

ITS is a group, genius. Perhaps you're referring to eco-extremism?

7

RadicalConstructivist wrote

a group united by their adherence to common set of ideals, beliefs and worldview... a common set of ideas... now, if only there was a word for that ... maybe... ideas...ideals... idealy? ...idealogy? nah I got nothing

3

allatseaaaa wrote

That's a very odd way to refer to a named group. Syndicalism is an ideology, IWW is a group. Platformism is an ideology, BRRN is a group. Christianity is an ideology, your local church is a group. In the above example, ITS is a group. Their first few years ITS were insurrectionary anti-civ, their more recent years have been eco-extremist. Two different ideologies. One named group.

3

[deleted] wrote

−5

allatseaa wrote

So the only thing PLW has ever wrote is a piece for NAMBLA? gtfo

9

[deleted] wrote

−13

allatseaa wrote

Yawn

11

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−12

allatseaa wrote

Who else is in your axis of evil, Weedsmoker420 (lol)?

8

[deleted] wrote

−5

allatseaa wrote

Wolfi L doesn't meet that criteria. Nor do the pre-WR ITS. So who are you referring to exactly?

8

[deleted] wrote

−5

allatseaa wrote

So you're here on the internet accusing someone you've never met and clearly know nothing about of having raped a child? Seriously, take a look at yourself.

10

[deleted] wrote

−8

allatseaa wrote

He never did that but clearly nothing is going to change your mind. Honestly, it's so tiresome to have to be around gossipy busybodies like you. It's like being at church.

10

[deleted] wrote

−6

allatseaa wrote

What are you talking about? Wow, the shit you get in your inbox if you mention ITS! You do know that Plain Words printed their early communiques, right? And that 325 and many other insurrectionary sites used to write enthusiastically about them? And that CCF and FAI signed joint declarations with them?

Perhaps you should do some research into what you're so outraged about?

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−7

CaptainACAB wrote

Keep down voting anyone who doesn't fall into your little echo chamber. It's why this place will never amount to anything worthwhile.

Because outsiders care too much about downvotes?

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−2

CaptainACAB wrote

"""insiders""" (seriously, try telling me this isn't cult-like thinking)

Sorry, I forgot that people outside of a given group aren't called outsiders. Would foreigner suit your sensibilities better?

I don't see your point.

My point is that I disagree with your evaluation for why this website "won't amount amount to anything". And, no, I don't care about any post-left writers; I haven't read any of the ones previously listed.

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−5

CaptainACAB wrote

it's why this place will never amount to anything worthwhile.

Not the impression I was getting.

Whatever, I'll leave you to argue with the 3 people you actually disagree with.

9

allatseaaaa wrote

I don't base my ideology off what popular sources of writing says

Yes, we can see that. You base it off social media takes.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

allatseaaaa wrote

my kid

Wait you have a child and yet you're here spending your time shrieking on the internet about an essay from thirty years ago?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

allatseaaaa wrote

Seriously, put down the keyboard.

1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

I could say the same to you, bucko. But here we are -- however, only one of us wants to defend pedophiles because they wrote words that make me feel good. :)

Don't make me pull out my FULLY AUTOMATIC KEYBOARD.

3

Kinshavo wrote

another_chomsko/bookchinite_liberal_throwing_a_tantrum_for_nothing.gif

13

CaptainACAB wrote

DuckDuckBookchin

I expected nothing but the finest of cringe.

I was not disappointed.

13

CaptainACAB wrote

The article I linked to is written by an indigenous anarchist and explains why we need respect-based hierarchies and why absolutism against all hierarchies isn't only illogical and inconsistent with the anarchist tradition but also racist and exclusionary to non-Western comrades.

ziq is also a non-western anarchist (indigenous, too, if I'm not mistaken). It's almost like non-Western people are individuals with different desires and ideals or something.

Identity politics: good minorities are on my side, the ones that aren't are misguided or non-existent.

10

ziq wrote

Nothing like the smell of a good struggle session in the spring air.

13

Ennui wrote

I love seeing literal utopian communists critiquing someone else’s idealism.

13

existential1 wrote (edited )

10/10. Would recommend reading to a friend. May we all aspire to be targets on r/(insert_text).

On a more serious note, why do people choose to stop being critical of hierarchy at some point yet still want to call themselves anarchists? I'm not into labels myself, but once you start making justifications of hierarchy you probably should stop considering yourself anarchist. It's ok not to believe in something...you're going to die eventually all the same. But what do I know, I'm just a dude who grows fruit and nut trees from seed because I think grafting trees is an ecocidal tool of human civilization that gets a pass because people like their Granny Smith apples.

12

black_fox wrote

once you start making justifications of hierarchy you probably should stop considering yourself anarchist. It's ok not to believe in something...you're going to die eventually all the same.

this

9

GlangSnorrisson wrote

This was really funny ngl. Bookchin-weirdo indignation is entertaining as fuck.

Best part: pearl-clutching over anarchists rejecting authority.

11

loukanikos wrote

Personally came over here after seeing ziq's piece posted in one of the green subreddits I sub to. Cannot remember which b/c looks like it has been removed now I think. Had tried to come over to raddle a few years back but never fully broke the reddit habit.

The outrage about this seems to be pretty controversial on r/anarchism, which is good at least?

11

veuzi wrote (edited )

Tbh, ziq, you aren't really that good at criticizing ancoms on their own terms. But since you've managed to provoke this knee-jerk reaction from a walking stereotype of a Bookchinite, clearly something in there is working.

9

ruin wrote

While I don’t entirely disagree, in fairness to ziq, all of these arguments are a priori and ultimately end in calls to authority or dogma.

You can’t criticize a religious adherent (or their religion) using rational arguments. In this case it’s even harder as this type of anarchist can’t recognize their own religiosity as they choose to call it “science” or “materialism” or “objectivity”.

9

veuzi wrote (edited )

Large parts of ziq's piece paints ancoms with a broader brush than I think they deserve, some of it bordering on strawman arguments. Levelling the charge of "democracy" and "green industry" or implications of unfettered production at anarcho-communism at a whole doesn't reflect the stances of every ancom that I've talked to, so it doesn't come off as very convincing in the end.

"Is Communism Always Authority-Forming?" is the best part of the essay to me and could easily stand on its own, but the broad framing of communism in other parts of it exposes some contradictions that brings down the quality of the discourse in my eyes.

But in the end, it could just come down to differences in experiences. Reddit's anarchist communities of course attracts more "baby leftists" and other ideologues that could skew one's perception of the ideologies they identify with. And the OP of the linked post is obviously spooked by a whole host of authoritarian notions such as "rationality", "progress", "science" and of course the Bookchinite classic: "direct democracy". Not to mention the usage of the word "reactionary" with no substance to it.

9

ruin wrote

I don’t have strong feelings about ziq’s piece one way or another, but I admittedly have far more sympathy for its sentiments than any ancom/communalist rebuttal. I personally don’t think there’s much distance between the two FWIW.

I agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of anarchists on reddit. I’m allergic to online utopian ideologues. That’s why I hang out over here.

9

bloodrose wrote

Lol, they're getting roasted on reddit in both this post and their re-posting of it to /r/communalists. Is it just me or do they use the same tone and rhetoric as the trolls we get here from time to time? Is it all the same person? Or do they drink from the same brew?

9

GlangSnorrisson wrote

I like to imagine it’s one person with so much indignation they need to couch it in multiple ideologies.

9

unneeded_junes wrote

Is anyone able to give me a tl;dr of the situation? I read the Reddit post and I'm reading the comments here on Raddle and I literally have no idea of what's going on.

What take does ziq have that has Redditors upset?

And what’s with all the hate for Bookchin and AnComs on this thread?

7

veuzi wrote

Ziq likes to post links to their work on r/anarchism from time to time. Usually it doesn't get any attention, but this time around, a Bookchin stan (with a recent post history of strawmanning post-left and anti-civ perspectives, no less) noticed it and posted a rant of their own in response. The OP of said rant went on to insinuate that all individualists, post-lefties and anti-civ anarchists are far-right infiltrators, and subsequently called for their deplatforming.

Predictably, shit hit the fan in the comments and the OP got roasted several times over while desperately trying to defend their assumptions. I was myself asked if I was a "rightist" for saying that not all anarchists want to LARP as leftist revolutionaries.

Don't know if you've been lurking on this site much, but the userbase here is mostly of the post-left, individualist, nihilist or anti-civ varieties of anarchism who have never really gotten along with the more dogmatic personalities of the social anarchists, as exemplified by the stereotype of a recent ancom convert who have only ever read Kropotkin and a few other authors with similar views at most.

The schism with Bookchin specifically goes back to his quarrels with Bob Black in the 90s, namely Bookchin's Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism and Black's response Anarchy After Leftism (where he coined the term "post-left anarchy"). Bookchin abandoned anarchism entirely as a result and came up with communalism, a sort of compromise ideology between Marxism and anarchism that emphasizes direct democracy, federalism and social ecology.

8

anarchyfrog wrote

Bookchin also started out as a Stalinist in his youth. And now federalism has been adopted by tankies (lemmy.ml), bringing things truly full circle.

4

zoom_zip OP wrote

the person who made the post is going through the motions of a) promoting hierarchy on an anarchist subreddit b) comparing individualists to nazis in the same breath as saying they should be silenced c) acting like anyone who holds a different opinion to their “correct” opinion is dangerous.

i don’t think ziq’s essay has redditors upset. it’s just this one poster.

i don’t know who bookchin is. is he a dead white guy with a beard?

i didn’t make this post with any hate for ancoms. i would probably identify as ancom if i wasn’t so weirded out by the idea of pinning my beliefs to a single label, or feeling like people would misunderstand my beliefs if they weren’t 100% in line with the label; and also the whole weird shows of identity that i mentioned in one of my other comments, like wearing ancom flags and calling each other “comrade” that just weirds me out.

7

train wrote

Bookchin is actually a pretty recent political theorist. He tried squaring differences between communism and anarchism to create a political philosphy he called communalism. His work heavily influenced the politics of the PKK in northern Syria which ended up founding Rojava.

The relative success of Rojava, which uses a system they call Democratic confederalism, has definitely generated enthusiam for Bookchin and his ideas abroad.

5

allatseaa wrote

His work heavily influenced the politics of the PKK in northern Syria which ended up founding Rojava.

This is an exagerration if not at outright fabrication (not by you, but by the people you heard it from). The PKK - who are a political party - started name dropping Bookchin to appeal to Western anarchists. They did this when their supply of Western marxists ran dry. Their Great Leader's correspondence with Old Man Murray was nothing more than a very politically experienced leftist manipulating a very naive one.

5

train wrote

I think you're right in someways but wrong in others. For one I really don't know that the PKK and subsequently the YPG have ever really had a meaningful international unit. It's entirely possible they aimed to expand those ranks even if they were not very successful in doing so. Although to be fair I don't actually know what the numbers are.

This of course doesn't mean playing up Bookchin isn't part of the PKK's and now Rojava's external propoganda. It certainly is. They clearly want to inspire sympathies from westerners as their claim to legitimacy was in part due to the US backing them in a war against ISIS. However, this strategy is limited and has done little to protect Rojava from Turkey.

Lastly, this isn't just part of Rojava's external propoganda. It's clearly internal too. I legitimately don't think they would have had much buy in from people in norntheastern Syria had Öcalan and the PKK not embraced some form of municipalism.

That doesn't mean Rojava is actually communalist. It also doesn't prove that communalism or democratic confederalism are worthwhile political philosophies. Hower, as I said, I do think the relative success of Rojava has actually drawn more people toward Bookchin and communalism. I think that's true even if, as you say, the intention was to draw communalists to the PKK and Rojava.

4

train wrote

Its a conflict between egoist and communalist anarchists as far as I'm aware. They both call themselves anarchists but have a different understanding of what defines hierarchy. Many of the former seem to consider themselves "post left" and will heavily critique concepts like democracy. The latter might see such views as harmful because they can be interpretted to be cynical and fatalistic.

Ziq and a number of users here are very much of the individualist/egoist camp. I don't think they represent everyone on this site but judging by the number of Max Stirner memes it's definitely a thing here.

4

anarchyfrog wrote

Communalists don't consider themselves anarchists unless they haven't actually read Bookchin. Bookchin strongly opposed anarchism.

4

train wrote

That's not how I understand it. Bookchin opposed individualist anarchism which is not what all self described anarchists believe is anarchism. His break from using the term anarchist to describe himself I believe is more about creating a distinction between his own philosophy and individualist anarchists. That's not a distinction all self descrilbed anarchists care to make.

5

train wrote (edited )

I get what you mean but this seems more like an argument to define the term anarchism to exclude certain self described anarchists. I don't think they describe themselves as such in bad faith. With that said, idk how useful it is to argue about whether or not they are anarchists. I think that detracts from the ideological argument which is far more substantive.

4

topa wrote

Anti-communist anarchists are just as damaging to the left as the far right is

We wish?

7

CivilizationsEnd wrote

This dork’s post on r/anarchism not only got me to read the essay, but led me to make an account here. Great work, Bookchinoid

7

Bezotcovschina wrote

After reading that post, my first thought was "I wonder, how many people it will attract to raddle?"

4

zoom_zip OP wrote

whatup

3

CivilizationsEnd wrote

Very sick of reading leftoid takes who can’t see the writing on the wall, tired of the weird resurgence of failed ideologies, I’ve put in my time trying to influence leninoids and lolberts and now I just want to chill and enjoy watching this world collapse

7

d4rk wrote

good fucking luck, that themsper ain't going anywhere

4

Bezotcovschina wrote

Those phrasings! I was going to provide some hilarious citations from that post, but ended up just copying almost entire post. They are ridiculing themselves with such rhetoric.

3