Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ennui wrote

A leftist friend of mine once said that they thought anarchists were too idealistic. But my anarchism lacks an ideal. In most cases, it’s pure negation: all other politics fails, so anarchism is what’s left over, that is, the non-political politics.

My conclusion was that those who call anarchism idealistic are highlighting the same motivation that makes me view them as idealistic—the urge to organize others—but failing to apply it to themselves. We’re all happy hypocrites.

8

Blackbeard wrote

I feel like part of it is just a set way of thinking based on how things have always been. Like people who have only ever had ice cream for dessert. The want something different, so they try a different flavor. You say you don't like the ice cream, so they ask what flavor you'd rather have instead. They never considered you'd rather have pie, or you hate dessert all together.
Weird analogy maybe, but I've got some ice cream with cone pieces and a chocolate swirl in the freezer calling my name 😋

5

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Some people like neat conclusions for unknown reasons. You fight the "bad guys", fix the world, and live happily ever after. We live in a work of fiction with neat little endings and a clean, visible, all-encompassing narrative to get there. No one wants to talk about mundane details like whether or not their proposed system will just relapse like most revolutions, that's just "nihilistic" or something. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to be the general mindset behind organization and blueprints that map out every aspect of life under an unprecedented political system, they don't think these methods are broken.

We're all pawns that need to follow sets of instructions written by some pedantic nerd who read a lot of books but doesn't understand that humans aren't mindless carbon copies of each other.

If this seemed like rambling, it probably was because I'm tired and am going to bed after submitting it.

5

UberGeek wrote (edited )

The whole "I dunno, work it out" IS organizing.

A lot of the "organizing" in leftist groups is really just a small group trying to get a larger group in line.

But yes, you do have rules for your fridge, they are just unspoken, and everyone has agreed to them. Consensus based decision making, in action.

That being said, not every anarchist is at the same level of anarchism, to be sure. You can't have a "no rules at all", when you have 1000 people living in a city block. Everyone has to agree to a set of rules, even if unspoken. They are known as "social mores", and aren't any less a set of rules just because everyone agrees with them.

But to your point, yes: I don't want an outside group "organizing us". "Us" can organize ourselves, just fine, generally.

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

If you aren't communicating with others to build a shared present which is desired and consented to by everyone, the most vulnerable people suffer the most in a lot of cases. This is pretty evident if you just look at how capitalism functions, what happens in abusive households where a vulnerable person doesn't have support, etc. Shrugging your shoulders and focusing on your own shit is understandable, but it's also the most conservative thing you can do. This is why some other people don't really agree with you about this, and why the majority viewpoint on raddle that you summarize well here is ridiculed by a much larger amount people outside this particular echo chamber, who consider themselves on the left or affiliated with anarchism. Ironically, this type of viewpoint, which seems classically post-left, is pretty similar to how a lot of people feel about things. Something fucked up happened? Eh, whatever, it'll work itself out, I have other stuff to do.

I also feel from the phrasing of everything you wrote here, that you also are aware that this is the general gist of other's perspectives, but that you are saying you don't understand in order to kind of minimize it, which seems a bit rhetorically underhanded if I'm completely honest. I could be wrong, it's hard to interpret text sometimes.

Anyway, I had a pretty bad day, and I need to go to sleep. I hope you have a good day, or evening, wherever you are.

4

subrosa wrote

I don't think the comparison to common attitudes à la "eh, whatever, it'll work itself out" is fair. OP used a different line...

I dunno. Work it out.

Not knowing in advance, not needing to know a solution or way of doing things, is arguably what distinguishes anarchist approaches from political/democratic ones. In absence of authorities and rights (or more generally, in absence of government), it's a lot more difficult to give up responsibility. There's no officials carrying out your sense of 'what ought to be'.

If you aren't communicating with others to build a shared present which is desired and consented to by everyone, the most vulnerable people suffer the most in a lot of cases.

Part of what maintains the governmental state is what we might call an 'acceptable range' for a shared temporality. People already do a lot of communicating to build, maintain, reproduce this shared temporality and its limits. Also, people desire and consent to all kinds of authoritarian shit. We do all that a fair bit and still end up with vulnerable people suffering the most.

OP doesn't seem to be against communicating the how's and why's, but rather against the idea that it necessarily needs to be communicated, that we need to know/decide in advance. Organizing can be understood differently — as an ongoing, experimental process, possibly without relying on the micro-politics of consent and agreement. Some responsibility and some awareness of the needs and desires of people we surround ourselves with might be enough in many cases.

When some democrat then asks about how we would make decisions, or 'get things done', or make sure everyone's alright,... the answer is a struggle with that very need to know in advance. And the answer is something along the lines of "I don't know, we'll figure it out" or "depends on the circumstances and the people involved", or "any way we want to". Of course, in a society shaped by authority and government, our circumstances, the people involved and their desires end up reproducing authority and government. So of course there's a little more to it.

Here's my rhetorical underhand:

I'm probably a usual suspect for the classical echo-chamber post-left raddle edge, I don't know. Please don't take my comment as an argument, I took yours as an invitation to sketch something out. Possibly awkwardly. Feel free to ignore and move on in a second or two. I hope you're having a better day.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

OP doesn't seem to be against communicating the how's and why's, but rather against the idea that it necessarily needs to be communicated

I'm sorry, to me this is totally incoherent.

Most people don't communicate enough. It ruins relationships, projects, whole societies. You cannot effectively navigate consent without either communication, rapport, or both; usually you need both.

3

subrosa wrote

I think a focus on consent can help create an imagined 'constitution' between people, some kind of ideal that has them constantly negotiate a set of rules, or define each others role in the group. I think consent is a fairly low standard, best used to bridge the time needed for better relations.

Most people are stuck communicating their roles and expectations within an alien world of worker-consumer-citizens; I don't think it's a question of quantity.

What I'm suggesting is that, given some awareness of other people's needs and desires, a whole lot of balance (agreement, justice, or whatever you wanna call it) can be found in various real-time approaches to "figuring it out". A whole lot of problems can be solved if we problematize issues without needing to share (or communicate) every aspect of the realization/solution.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

I don't think it's a question of quantity.

I think it definitely is a question of quantity-- consumers are privileged to avoid having any sort of human communication, workers are reduced and obstructed systematically from navigating any sort of consent in their workplaces (forced to work to live), citizens are merely asked "sociopath A or sociopath B or sociopath C" in every election and that's about it.

If that seems like "too much consent" or "a lot of consent", then we simply disagree fundamentally on this.

given some awareness of other people's needs and desires, a whole lot of balance can be found in various real-time approaches to "figuring it out".

people will never have equal opportunity to participate in real-time approaches to figuring it out. Establishing things in advance, as well as allowing for changes to dynamically be renegotiated, is the only way to ensure that all people have the opportunity to meaningfully consent to their participation within a non-hierarchical space. Everyone is different, we all have our own psychological hangups, traumas, marginalizations, personalities...and so much more. There are so many factors that fuck up this ad-hoc approach you're defending here. I wouldn't speak up about it, if I hadn't see this very approach ruin so many projects, friendships, and more.

Imagine if you were trying to sleep with your partner, who had a r*pe fantasy. Would you just figure it out in the moment? No. You talk about it beforehand, and have communication throughout.

Let's take something more mundane. Imagine if you were me, and your housemates didn't do the dishes EVER unless you ask them to each time. Even after repeated conversations. You would need to have to work on getting more communication going on this, and develop accountability for the feminist men who are exploiting your women's labor.

A whole lot of problems can be solved if we problematize issues without needing to share (or communicate) every aspect of the realization/solution.

To the contrary, it is majorly important to talk about a lot of things that seem "trivial" and come up with a plan, because without that there is no accountability and the worst people in the group will benefit from the lack of conversation.

This type of attitude is a major point of difference I have with anarchists in general, who I feel, if I may be a little blunt, have a lazy analysis which ends up being reactionary, on these issues. I'm just speaking from decades of daily life experience.

3

subrosa wrote

A critical stance 'against' communication and consent probably demands a more careful use of words than I'm capable of. It's probably not enough to raise concerns about accountability and consent being super compatible with the language and methods of democratic self-government at its most repressive. Is it?

Admittedly not speaking from much daily life experience, I try to stay away from that.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Generalizing anything, leads to difficulty, I will acknowledge that to you. However, I think we would live in a much better world, if people communicated more rather than less, in many cases. That is how, in bloodrose's word, you "figure it out". At least, in my opinion.

There are ways and appropriate times to eke out autonomy for individuals, but they are invariably predicated on communication between people on the far greater number of issues which are of shared spaces, and thus which require legitimately collective conversations, or legitimately free opportunities for people to safely disengage their bonds. Since the latter is usually not going to happen for most people in urban/civilized/mass society contexts, it's just necessary for people to talk and not simply build up resentment from the contradictions of our desires for autonomy.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

But isn't all of that because of rules?

Rules aren't the same thing as communication. Communication can happen between people who don't wield power over each other, however rules are only enforced when there is a power imbalance, even if temporary or collectivized. On the face of it this seems like a red herring, but perhaps you can rephrase what you mean so I can understand your point better?

2

DeletedButArchived wrote

Aren't you just basically saying why do people care about pro/anti democracy, if anti civ, primitivisim or industrialist is better when all of our food not bombs, cop watches, squats are all going to look pretty similar regardless of what idealistic future we think will be best?

CRs comment made me wonder if I misunderstood u

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

specialagentalexreidross wrote

If not control you, then certainly control your desires. "Hey, don't you want this? Don't you want that? Me and my buddies can make your dreams come true, once you start having the right dreams."

P.S. Excuse the username :D

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

It wasn't that you talked about not liking something, it was the way you framed it as a question "why is X important to [3rd party]". it implied there were no apparent reasons why people would ever organize things, to the point it confused you, which seemed rhetorical rather than genuine.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Well, it just seems like, there are so many other platforms for discourse where people express these viewpoints so openly. I can understand people being confused by anarchist ideas, due to lack of visibility/clarity, but the need to organize and arguments in this favor, are all over the left-leaning spaces on the internet. even liberals et al partially agree with these arguments time to time.

I'm not saying that i agree with those uncritically, but i feel the saying "idk why ppl think this" is just...it just seems like you're trying to appeal to the echo chamber here, where the attitude is "the world, it is what it is, if you want to do something then just do it or figure it out with a small group". which plenty of non-anarchists, and even other anarchists, critique quite thoroughly. Just as, of course, you all critique those people's alternatives. I'm of the opinion, personally, that there are problems with both, and we don't have a path toward survival, let alone a sort of desirable outcome for more than the most privileged people.

2

NoPotatoes wrote

Organization is mentally pleasing to many people I think. Have you ever played solitaire? All of the number and color ordering and matching just makes my brain happy.

3

DeletedButArchived wrote (edited )

Oh, I think like 85% of the theory I read and talk about on social media is a completely unhelpful. I do it bc its a fun hobby.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

DeletedButArchived wrote (edited )

I dont really enjoy arguing. I try to avoid when I can online.

It's more like reading fiction stories that are tied to the real world. Like with all fiction it sometimes influenced how I live my life but not often. Often theory is at a higher reading level so it's far more challenging fiction to read which I like.

But theory has a whole community of likeminded people I can talk to about theory with. Due to OPSEC most anarchists only talk about limited info of themself and their mutual aid projects. So to have deeper convos with anarchists online it kinda has to be about theory since it can't really be about anything to personally identifying.

If I stopped socializing with anarchists on the internet my theory reading would probably be reduced by 60%

Tldr: it's more challenging fiction that is pretty grounded in the real world. So it makes for pretty fun books to read for fun. Also I really like talking to Anarchists online and the only real thing to talk about is theory and theorizing.

Edit: your question is about future organization and I kinda lumped theory in there despite not quite being correct. Theory kinda has 3 catagories. 1. Basically a guide for a mutual aid project like running a food not bombs or an ICE hotline. 2. Philosophy such as baeden, egoism and anti work 3. Organizing texts, anti civ, kropotkin, sydicalism etc. When I said theory in this comment I'm only referring to number three and two a little. If it wasn't for the social aspect of online anarchism i probably wouldnt read barely any 3 a lot less 2 and the same amount number 1 bc I really like reading 1 type but 2 is pretty fun in limited quantities. Tho most of the enjoyment from 2 and 3 come from socializing and having a challenging fiction to read

4

Ennui wrote

Actually they're arguing for a professorship, or more often a dead end 9 to 5 job. The dead end job is for those who argue outside of the societally prescribed realm of argumentation, which is determined by the arguer in chief, Sir Robert Nozick, and his wife Willard Van Orman Quine.

2