Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pop wrote

Anarchism can effectively be summarized as libertarian Socialism.

I dunno, I don't think anarchism has to have anything to do with socialism

2

[deleted] wrote

1

Pop wrote

It seems like you're saying that the first person who uses a word is the one who defines the word?

Are you an Individualist Anarchist?

No, I think the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is nonsense and that both strands are weak

4

[deleted] wrote

1

ziq wrote

Why should a dead white rich European man be granted authority over the definition of anarchy? Wouldn't it make more sense to untether anarchy from the grasp of Eurocentrism? To decolonize it and refute its forced attachment to industrial colonialist European civilization?

the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production.

Notice how centered he is on European civilization? Why should the rest of the world be expected to see anarchy through this dead prince's eyes?

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I don't know what you're asking.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I feel like we're reading from different scripts or something because I have no idea what you're asking me.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

What social configuration do you think should be brought about?

I reject the notion of 'social configuration' and the idea that I have the power to bring it about.

Ideally you would abolish social configurations altogether, but, how is that to happen?

It's not.

2

ziq wrote

Proudhon is dead. Anarchy preceded his ideas and anarchy exceeded his ideas.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

Pop wrote

depends what you mean by 'tied'

I said it doesn't have to have anything to do with socialism, not that there's no history of socialist anarchism

there is a lot of content to socialism, and we don't need to frame ourselves in its terms

3

ziq wrote

You're kind of making an appeal to authority argument though which makes little sense in an anarchist context. History be damned, anarchy isn't owned by the European left.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I do, however, think that the philosophy has some of its beginings in The International Workingmen's Association

Anarchy existed long before European scholars decided to yearn for it. All they did was advocate for a return to it.

Are you suggesting that an appeal to history is an appeal to an authority?

It is when you view history with such Eurocentricism. Anarchist cultures have been around for millennia. Anarchy wasn't invented by 19th and 20th century European men. European society doesn't have ownership over the struggle for anarchy. The International Workingmen's Association was far removed from anarchy's beginnings.

Anarchy isn't something that was invented with the advent of industrial civilization - it was something that industrial civilization stripped from us.

so I do tend to see Anarchism as being a somewhat exclusively left-wing school of thought

Well you don't even think anarchism should be called anarchism because you think 'libertarian socialism' is more descriptive, so it's not surprising that you'd reject anarchist currents that don't revolve around industrial workerism.

I just simply think that libertarian Socialism just simply is what Anarchism is.

Not to me or any anarchist I care about.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't necessarily think that Anarchism is something like the lost wisdom of the ancients

There's nothing lost about it, it's just the default. We're all born into this world in anarchy. Then almost immediately; especially if we live in civilization, authority is stamped on us, shoved down our throat and into our ears, tied around our neck and then for the rest of our lives we're conditioned to obey that authority.

ideal Anarchist society

There is no ideal anarchist society. No end point where we all announce we've achieved utopia and retire. Anyone claiming anarchy can be achieved rather than it being a permanent struggle against authority either doesn't understand anarchy or is trying to manipulate you into being ruled.

The moment someone declares they've achieved "ideal anarchist society", you need to kill them.

Check my profile for a link to my anarchistlibrary stuff or look through w/anarchy101 if you want to understand my perspective better.

2

[deleted] wrote

1

ziq wrote (edited )

We're born in anarchy because we haven't been indoctrinated into authority yet. Authority constructs are placed on us all through our lives, both physically and mentally.

1