Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote

post left anti capitalist is probably the most accurate definition of my politics. I understand this as the realization of anarchist communism, but most anarchist communists do not seem to engage with the fundamental contradictions evident in historical and ongoing experiences of anarchists who are enmeshed in leftist ideology and networks.

Instead, fetish objects are created, where there are "good" communists (CNT, IWW, Paris Commune) and "bad" communists (stalinist, trot, maoist, in that order). The "bad apples" are understood to be fundamentally different than the "good apples", and the problems associated with these "bad apples" are isolated and contained to those particular systems.

There is no real critical engagement with the shared underlying structures, leading the typical ancom responding to basic questions about their ideology's feasibility to be forced to idealize past and failed forms of organizing, explaining the repeated failures of every example as only the result of "outside agitators".

What should alarm ancoms, is that this is the same argument used by tankies, and most concerningly it is functionally identical to the argument used by police unions to defend the institutions of violence their workers implement on us all.

The implication being, if only we had a totally neutral and sterile space in which to actualize our ideology, then we'd be all good-- it's these circumstances, these particular bad apples, that are the problem. This has the downside of relegating most possibilities for the actualization of the ideology to the domain of unreality, causing in most ancoms a sense of lingering depression. While this depression is in major part due to the material conditions we find ourselves in through no choice of our own, ancom (and really all) ideology does in fact produce some of this: a form of learned helplessness.

How much easier it would be to instead critique those past implementations, and draw distinction of one's own project from those of the past! And yet, this is rarely the course of action when it comes to the ancom Canon. these ideological fetish objects, despite their privilege making the case for the ideological more difficult, nevertheless are retained in a romantic and frankly ahistorical form. The reason for this is that without a Platonic actualization of its ideal form, ancom ideology (or any alternative) feels empty when situated within neoliberal hegemony.

The irony is that it is neoliberalism which, despite seeming omnipresent and universal due to its hegemony, is in fact the emptiest ideology. What empties the alternative ideologies, like ancom thought, is the acquiescence to the "need" for a full Platonic actualization of its ideals. In truth, this is the consequence of what John Zerzan called "The Failure of Symbolic Thought".

What would instead be fruitful for ancoms, anarchists, and really for people in general, is to criticize the very idea of a single "solution". To attack the very concept of a universal metanarrative as oppressive in of itself. To portray the ongoing history of the world not as a struggle between clear good and evil, but instead as a complex and fraught series of contradictory processes, which may be understood only in ever-shifting and pluralistic contexts. To learn, discuss, and engage meaningfully with the nihilist, anti civ, and post left ideas, of course without subscribing wholesale on the basis of creating a universal and objective ideology-- that would defeat the purpose.

In confronting ideological thinking itself, one finds the most fertile conditions for revolt which poses successful challenges to hierarchical society. This is because in confronting ideological thinking, one avoids the idealization and romanticism which hamstrings and dooms others into the same traps of logic, perception, and material conditions.

Anarchists, including ancoms, are among those best situated to realize this fundamental contradiction, despite many of us also reifying them on a very regular basis. This capacity for recognizing these contradictions is in many cases why anarchists initially differentiate themselves from tankies, authoritarian communists, and demsocs/socdems, and it is also why I have continued to identify and engage with anarchist communities. I believe that many of us have the power within us to engage in the kind of realism, iconoclasm, and confrontation of ideology to surpass our comforting fetish objects and buzzwords, replacing those "blankets, so secure" with the "floodlights that can free us from the darkness" (Propagandhi, Tertium Non Datur).

I don't bother making the same arguments to non-anarchists who affiliate with a particular politic or ideology, because generally speaking this is perceived by these people as a threat/troll/distraction/etc.

9

debored wrote (edited )

These dorks really out here quoting Babeuf, La Boétie, and Bobbio. Can you imagine.

4

ziq wrote

I think leftists just like to smugly drop the names of dead white dudes, thinking it makes them look legitimate, authoritative and edumucated because they've read all their shit, and just quoting some dead asshole's theory will end the debate and shut me up.

But then I refuse to accept the dead asshole's authority and force them to engage me using their own words instead of arguments they got from an old ass book.

Something tells me they'll just dismiss me and quote a dead guy again.

4

trashcan wrote

How can you claim to be against authority and talk about "building a society" without seeing the contradiction there?

4

ziq wrote

the same way you can think anarchism = nicer labor.

3

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

They also seem to define Anti-capitalism as inseparable from leftism; which contributed to my initial reluctance to looking into post-leftism back when I was an ancom.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

They replied again, here's the new comments

https://archive.fo/oPXJl

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I'm confused as to what the point of the reply was; were they trying to say that we have to embrace industrialization or work within the confines of it because the world runs on it? If I have to work within the confines of a concept that I wish to strip myself of, I'm not rejecting that concept's authority; and at that point, calling myself an anarchist would be as accurate as calling Malcolm X a white supremacist.

Anarchism, to me, is specifically the theory around successfully "applying" Anarchy to the World. And the World is currently intricated in those labour struggles.

See, I can understand this point of view; despite not being a leftist, I'm fine with workers trying to better their conditions, hell, I'm all for it; I just think that trying to make your job less hellish shouldn't be the end goal, as a Syndicalist or even an Ancom might believe; the abolition of the conditions that make it so that you have to work is what I see as the most desirable outcome, because at that point, the only work you have to really do is caring for the needs of yourself and your loved ones. But given how weak and utterly useless unions are in both the US and various developing countries that are exploited for cheap labor in comparison to the times where outsourcing labor wasn't a fucking thing, I doubt that Kropotkin, Bakunin, or any other long dead leftist theorist have the answers for problems that concern contemporary radicals. A decent deconstruction of capitalism and authoritarianism, maybe; but a framework for starting a functioning society and timeless tactics towards tearing down an increasingly powerful oppressive one? No.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

They're saying the world is binary and we all have to craft our message to fit into that binary, because of course the most important thing an anarchist does is spread the gospel of the Christ Chomsky to the poor huddled masses.

at that point, calling myself an anarchist would be as accurate as calling Malcolm X a white supremacist

Yeah but at least liberals will get excited about your ideas for radical democracy and decentralized meritocracies as far as the eye can see.

But given how weak and utterly useless unions are

Yeah.. Unions, like political parties, just make the populace think they have power over the capitalists when they don't. Because democracy.

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Yeah.. Unions, like political parties, just make the populace think they have power over the capitalists when they don't. Because democracy.

I mean, I like the idea of unions and co-ops in theory; if you absolutely have to live under this system (which, unfortunately, everyone critical of civilization has had to at some point), then having an actual say in how you have to work is better than having your livelihood dictated by the will of another human being, I just think they leave room for complacency (in that, people might just be satisfied with just better working conditions instead of wanting to abolish work), corruption, and the continued reliance on the hierarchy inherent in labor. Political parties don't even have a theoretical appeal.

3

RobinGuk wrote

This means that you must exit the cycle and take a position. Exit the equation Y + Z = X Where: Y=body , Z=actions

1

RobinGuk wrote

If people all over the world didn’t go to work, capitalism would collapse

1

RobinGuk wrote

If people all over the world didn't go to work, capitalism collapsed. Remember!

1

Green_Razor wrote

Can someone eli5 what post-leftism is, or why anarchism isn't leftist?

3

ziq wrote

Left vs Right comes from which side of the French king members of the états généraux were sitting before the French revolution - those on the right were monarchist, those on the left were in favour of the republic. In other words, both were in favour of the state. Obviously all this was a long time ago, and most people aren't really aware of it, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant, because the underlying assumption still persists that the whole spectrum of conceivable politics need to be enacted through the state. That's still true, whether it's social-democrats, liberals, leninists, greens, whatever.

I think one of the most important things we need to get across is that worthwhile political changes can only be achieved through direct action outside and against the state, parliamentary democracy and the various structures of class collaboration, and that means questioning the left vs right thing.

1

rot wrote

At this point I really don't know if I should consider anarchy leftist or not. generally we organize as a part of the "left" lots of older anarchist writers have described themselves as "leftist" before anarchist.

2

RobinGuk wrote

if every person different resources and opportunities.How do you imagine equality?

1

ziq wrote

A scumbag politician's campaign promise.

1