Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Equality is obviously unattainable and undesirable since it requires normalization of every facet of society in order to work. It would kill diversity and force everyone to live the way the purveyors of "equality" deem necessary for "progress".

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

I would say no, but my opinion is probably the minority on this website.

2

Cheeks OP wrote

Well, can you elaborate?

Also, why are you here then?

−2

ziq wrote (edited )

The site isn't a collective mind, not everyone has to agree about everything.

4

Cheeks OP wrote

Haha.. Obviously. My intent wasn't to alienate but rather have them offer up some input.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

I think that it is useful to increase the ability of marginalized, working class, or otherwise subaltern persons to access the material necessities of life within the confines of this mode of production. That is what i think is a bit unpopular, because others might suggest for instance that it is better to focus energy on creating that next mode of production/society, whereas I prefer to take a dual approach where both revolutionary actions are paired with certain, well-curated reformist demands.

While it is certainly true that reformism, electoralism, and those endeavors usually suck energy from any incipient revolutionary activity, I think there are specific cases in which they may act, at least partially, in tandem/concert. There are fewer still in which this is indeed a better strategy, in my opinion, but i believe they still exist.

For example, with an issue that is of particular interest to me, deprofessionalization of medicine fields. You can pair agitation for universal healthcare access, with opposition to the system of health insurance in general. You can advocate for greater access to healthcare for reproductive care, for trans healthcare, while simultaneously supporting efforts that make it easier for those with uteruses and transgender people to be in charge of their own healthmaking (decentralizing production/distribution of medicines, spreading knowledge of health self-care, finding alternatives to costly or professionalized care, etc).

So in this field, for example, I think it is useful to both engage with marxist/socialist discourse to shift public spending to ensure universal healthcare, but also it is very essential to engage with anarchist praxis which directly reduces the dependence people have on the authoritarian institution of medicine.

This is obviously much more complex than i am making it out to be for the purposes of this discussion, and there are very legitimate and real, historically-grounded reasons to disagree strongly with my dual-approach idea. That is why my opinion, i suspect, is the minority. However, I still feel that in certain cases it can be beneficial to pair reformist efforts with revolutionary activity, even if the people involved in either do not explicitly coordinate or even talk with each other. They could hate each other, but still be part of an effective dialectic, in certain cases.

3

Cheeks OP wrote

The removal of barriers is mainly what I'm getting at.

2