Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

celebratedrecluse wrote

Damn, you're arguing with a complete strawman.

You realize, I am an anarchist too? For decades, never wavering from my beliefs, even at personal cost? You lecture me as if I am a child. Even if you do not mean it to sound this way, it comes across condescending to literally link me to the wiki article on praxis, among other features of this comment.

In the process, you fail to engage with the substance of my point, which accepts the entire comment you made as a premise. I don't campaign for politicians. I don't give electoral politics the time of day 99% of the year. But for a few minutes once every year, I pen in some names on a ballot, which are the least harmful options. It is far from important. But it does a small amount to forestall the rise of fascism, and it is worth doing given that the option exists and is not inconvenient or time consuming for me.

When I say anarchists are the only ones who can make revolution, i am not talking about the second coming of christ. I am talking about literally just changing society, at all, from the neoliberal consensus. It's an ongoing process, and I use the word revolution to refer to that-- I have no belief in a political "revolution" to solve all problems, or even a few problems really. Even as climate catastrophe goes on, still we are mired in this neoliberal hell, and worse yet there are the reactionaries rising in power worldwide.

In the process of saying this, I am explicitly denying that the dem socs or social democrats will be able to solve the contradictions. In fact, this is in my original comment. So you will perhaps understand now why I am annoyed at the tone of your reply, you lecture me that I need to read the article, but it appears you flatly did not fully read my comment, instead replying only to key words incidentally contained within it.

1

Cheeks wrote (edited )

Sorry... Was held hostage and forced into wage slavery again to avoid starvation and homelessness. Stupid capitalism!

I don't know if you have made any edits since, but upon rereading I'm not spotting the part I took issue with?

I do want to say though, as a little a anarchist I'm not too concerned at how we arrive at anarchism, or even what form or model it exists as, as long as the basis is there and we get there. An-coms, coms, and socs need to be put in check often and honestly If history serves as the great marker that it is the coms and socs aren't an ally to anarchism by any stretch of the imagination and shouldn't be treated as such. That doesn't mean they aren't friends within community building and mutual aid networks, but we absolutely have to put them in check and keep them from usurping projects. Actually I have reservations about that last statement even....scratch that.

1

nostateuniversity wrote (edited )

Why are you talking about socdems and demsocs when the article was about communists and anarcho-leftists? If anything, socdems and demsocs only seek to extend capitalism and industrialism. Communists and red anarachists would certainly do a better job at addressing climate change then them, and if you`ve read the article, you'd know the explanation to why their solutions are wholely inadequate.

Even with environmental regulations, simply making sure the damage isn't accelerating is not enough. The growth of CO2 concentration has been linear (ie. not accelerating) since the Kyoto protocols were implimented, and here we are, even worse off than we were in 2005. Even if we actually reverse the growth of CO2 concentrations, the feedback loops that we've already set in motion, like methane being released from melting permafrost, will likely mitigate any gains we might make in that case.

And let's be honest, do you really think socdem/demsoc politicians are gonna be able to implement those sweeping changes? Just look at how quickly the French socialist party of the 80s and SYRIZA buckled and became liberal in practice; and those parties had far more radical platforms than the socdem politicians of today. No party, no matter how radical, is going to change the institutions based on economic and environmental exploitation that they operate within.

Which means that anarchists and our fellow travellers are pretty much all we've got to make a revolution with...an intimidating mantle, but i hope we shall live up to it in our time.

Don't wait around for a revolution that`s never going to come. Voting for socdem politicans and hoping and praying that this time, things will be different, they swear, is not enough. Do something. http://lfbg75wjgi4nzdio.onion/wiki/Praxis

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Red revolution = more ecocide.

Sure, assuming red revolution means 19th and 20th century authoritarian communists.

But we are now in the 21st century, and many of us talking about socialism are in entirely different parts of the world, where socialism has a very different connotation. I don't think it's fair to criticize democratic socialists due to the mistakes of an entirerly distinct ideological tradition.

I think, in the contemporary West, the victory of social democrats and democratic socialists in elections, and the implementation of their policies, would have an insufficiently proscriptive effect on environmental damage.

However, there is no real question in my mind that it would not accelerate the process of environmental degradation, as compared to a conservative or liberal administration or legislature. At worst, they would damage it only as much as the establishment already does, offering no real alternative to it. But their entire platform is increasingly based on environmental action and protection, and that is utterly unlike the old authoritarian soviets and maoists. Honestly, there are no serious authoritarian communists left in the West, only social democrats and demsocs, who have very narrow scopes of what the seek to achieve.

Which means that anarchists and our fellow travellers are pretty much all we've got to make a revolution with...an intimidating mantle, but i hope we shall live up to it in our time.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

in general, this is a problem for subaltern, not just workers. in uplifting a subaltern identity, which has been predefined in conversation with power, the predefinitions are themselves reified.

Leaving behind identity altogether, however, tends to be more successful in destabilizing an intersectional hierarchy. While valorizing the subaltern in the language of power reinforces the fundamental dynamics of power itself, attacking the concept of identity itself leaves power without a familiar landscape to dominate. Instead, the conversation of social contestation is more malleable. Other dynamics and positionalities can emerge, which are made impossible by the current dominant culture and its internal contradictions.

4

nostateuniversity wrote

Americans in particular seem to have this cult of martyrdom and struggle when it comes to work. The more hours you work, the more jobs you have, the more dangerous your work environment, and the less money you make, the better you are as a person. I don`t know if this just shows how entrenched the american civil religion is, or if people just lie to themselves to feel better about their position in the global hellscape that is industrial capitalism.

7

Cheeks wrote

"Doesnt this support the fact that without insurrection and the full dismantling of capitalism and industrialization most lifestyle choices are merely harm reducing?"

Yes, did I suggest otherwise in the piece? I think I just said ethical choices is harm reduction and harm reduction is good.

No, but it does kinda suggest, or seems to me to, that these lifestyle choices are enough, and somewhat implies an ethical superiority. Which it is noteworthy that if youre suggesting this in comparison strictly to an-coms, Socialists and communists, then I agree.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Would you not agree that workplace collectivization is "Harm reduction" considering it alleviates some of the ill effects of industry and capitalism on humans?

Yes, I didn't mean to say unionizing is bad, just that it doesn't make people better than non-workers and it doesn't revolutionize anything - so people that go to union meetings shouldn't act like they're hot shit.

we must first take care of ourselves and each other and through creating community

I talked a lot about prefiguration in the piece without using the actual word. I renamed it to "shift the culture" to lose its negative connotation.

I typically reserve the phrase, "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, " for liberal programs like the Banning of plastic straws and bags only to be replaced by paper products that force the continuation of deforestation. It isn't a solution, it's merely greenwashing established by marketing firms.

Sure, if that's where the slogan ended then that would be fine. But they push it further and further until it becomes a catch-all insult to mock anyone less red than them.

Doesnt this support the fact that without insurrection and the full dismantling of capitalism and industrialization most lifestyle choices are merely harm reducing?

Yes, did I suggest otherwise in the piece? I think I just said ethical choices is harm reduction and harm reduction is good.

5

Cheeks wrote

Good job, ziq!

Some thoughts and questions:

  1. Would you not agree that workplace collectivization is "Harm reduction" considering it alleviates some of the ill effects of industry and capitalism on humans? The same with collectivized housing? In order for us to be effective in creating a sustainable and ethical future we must first take care of ourselves and each other and through creating community it affords us the time, resources and energy to make a bigger impact. I know you are attributing the term solely to an environmental and ecological position .

  2. I typically reserve the phrase, "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, " for liberal programs like the Banning of plastic straws and bags only to be replaced by paper products that force the continuation of deforestation. It isn't a solution, it's merely greenwashing established by marketing firms.

  3. The numbers associated with "planned obsolescence" and resource extraction alone is indicative of capitalisms almost sole responsibility for our near future's ecological collapse. Doesnt this support the fact that without insurrection and the full dismantling of capitalism and industrialization most lifestyle choices are merely harm reducing?

Good read over all.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

The view that red industrialism is good for the environment because the state will protect against ecocide? The view that I've thoroughly debunked several times by showing socialist states committing ecocide to grow their economies?

The argument they use is the argument I've debunked in the piece and in this thread. You saying "no history doesn't count actually" doesn't make any logical sense to me.

4