Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

You're really not talking about anarchism though, you're talking about communism. Anarchism is specifically the struggle against authority - all authority. Not just the capitalist mode of production.

Anarchism can effectively be summarized as libertarian Socialism. I don't see a reason to use another term.

Because I'm an anarchist, not a libertarian socialist? I don't even think socialism has any real value in the midst of the Holocene extinction. Socialism is a way to organize industry. Industry is inherently exploitative and destructive to everything it touches. Anarchy and industrial workerist society are at odds.

6

A_Lane OP wrote

I tend to see Anarchism as historically being a political philosophy that is inextriably tied to the Left. I don't really like the Left, but, I do think that that is the case.

What do you mean by the Holocene extinction? Do you think that human beings are going to die off as a result of ecological catastrophe in our present era? I do think that the ecological situation is drastic, but, I don't know that I would say that I think that the global population will be annihilated in my lifetime.

1

ziq wrote

I tend to see Anarchism as historically being a political philosophy that is inextriably tied to the Left. I don't really like the Left, but, I do think that that is the case.

Because "the left" says so? Anarchy is simply the struggle against authority. If people want to attach ideology and mythology to it, they can, but that doesn't give them ownership over the struggle against authority which has been fought since before Homo sapiens even existed.

The left is an invention of liberalism, it has no real value as an anarchist concept since it's just another function of the state apparatus.

What do you mean by the Holocene extinction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

2

A_Lane OP wrote

I fail to see how the history of the terms, Right and Left, necessarily involves their utilization as an instrument of the State. The French Revolution was a Liberal revolution, and, one that was frought with various forms of totalitarianism, but, the terms just generally denote some form of political inclination or another. I guess I'm not sure that there is a beyond the Left and Right.

Given the ramifications of ecological catastrophe, what form of society do you see being created in the wake of what I assume to be the abolition of the State?

2

ziq wrote (edited )

The terms left and right only exist to keep the people living under statism thinking they have choice. That the state can be molded to suit their economic and social ideals. In reality, the state couldn't care less whether you identity as left or right. It's all just misdirect to get you to play the game by the state's rules. Rules that ensure you can never gain any traction if your goal is to dismantle the state.

the terms just generally denote some form of political inclination

Yes. A political inclination positioned firmly within the state apparatus. The illusion of choice.

3

A_Lane OP wrote

I guess I don't think that we have the same understanding of the French Revolution. That those sides were taken was a historical event. I'm fairly critical of the French Revolution as I believe that they had, in part, discovered what became contemporary dictatorship, but, I do see it as a historical event which effected the circumstances of our global situation today. You seem to advocating for a total epistemological break from historical processes which I find to be quite interesting.

1

ziq wrote

I don't give a shit about the french revolution. I'm talking about the contemporary left / right paradigm, not its origination.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

It is limited, but, it can be used to describe things. I think that the political compass is fine. It doesn't encapsulate everything, but, to explain to someone else what my political position is by stating that it's a -9, -9 or -10, -10 does make sense to them. I see right-wing Libertarianism as being, wittingly or not, somewhat crypto-Fascist and argue in favor only allying oneself in the left-wing Libertarian sphere for that reason.

1

kore wrote (edited )

EDIT: Okay so this was kind of a stupid post in retrospect. I guess what I was trying to get at is that all terms, including "Anarchism" and "Authority" and "Democracy" are dependent on the contexts they are used in. What "Anarchism" meant in 1850 is different than what it means now. words have a history and all that jazz. I get that expertise isn't a hierarchical power structure.

Bakunin, What is Authority?:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer...I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."

Engels "On Authority" is also pretty good, pretty chill passage here, even though Engels didn't really get it totally:

"But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all;...Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

Food for thought, anyway. EDIT: upon thinking a little more Engels was kind of a dumbass in this essay, but I think I was just trying to point out that there is some sort of "authority" in self-determination.

0

Splinglebot wrote

expertise isn't authority, just because bakunin got his terms mixed 150 years ago doesn't mean we have to start justifying authority

3

kore wrote (edited )

I'm more just playing around with terms. I find it impossible to make a catch-all definition of authority, as any other word. I just thought it was an interesting point, after all. Is there a difference between authority and authoritarianism? Just like I've seen critiques of anarchy vs anarchism

1