Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

zoom_zip wrote (edited )

oh so we are doing this meme after all?

we’re all at different points of a long path that leads in two directions. one direction goes towards where you want to be and one direction goes away. we all hold dissonance inside ourselves—like your example of being an anarchist and a parent and struggling to figure out how to reconcile those two parts of yourself. the question is: do you know which direction you are going? does each individual step that you take carry you closer or further away? and, if it’s carrying you further away, how do you reconcile that dissonance in your own head? how do you experience that inconsistency with your own thoughts and feelings?

i bet there are a lot of cops, military personnel, politicians, etc. who hold some anarchist thought in their minds, but the steps they take aren’t towards that anarchy, but away from it. they are walking into dissonance, and maybe given enough time the white noise of it will overpower and blanket out those anarchist thoughts and they will just be people who could have been anarchists once. which way are you going? and when you think about these dissonances, what are you doing about it?

anarchy is like enlightenment. it’s something you walk towards but never truly achieve. we all recognise that none of us are there yet; we just accept that as long as we’re walking in the right direction then we are building something for ourselves.

i don’t think it’s helpful necessarily to try and quantify people as anarchist, but to think about whether actions that people take are compatible with anarchy; and some people will take actions that are and aren’t at the same time—because people are complex and messy and imperfect.

that said, if you are walking in the other direction and taking so many actions that are incompatible with anarchy then at some point, sure—you can’t really call yourself an anarchist.

i don’t know if this helps. i didn’t really think it through before typing it up.


CaptainACAB wrote

The Marxists are touchy because they are arrogant. They lose their tempers easily when faced with anti-authoritarian criticism: they prefer to be adulated and flattered as champions of revolutionary ideas and absolute theoretical coherence.


fortifiedmischief wrote

The anarchists have stood still, are continuing to stand still, hypnotised by the conviction of having been in the right, of being still in the right

ha.... this is the only apt observation... I definitely feel it myself from time to time


sagb wrote (edited )

ideology : a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy

"[..] an effective political praxis requires therefore the knowing of of reality (theory), a harmonising [with theory/knowing of reality] postulation of (moral) concepts of transformation (ideology) and concrete political means towards its execution (political action [praxis])" (free translation of a translation in ""Listen, radical geographer!": Soziale Kämpfe, Anarchismus und Geographie in Bewegung" (Bartholl 2021), original citation: FAU)

I just don't believe this to be a ideological compromise, but rather a theoretical compromise.

Anarchism is also not that accessible in civilisation, right now, but that doesn't mean that anarchists believe Anarchism is (unnecessarily) gatekeeping "radicalism", because anarchists' knowing of reality (including historical events) brings anarchists to postulate Anarchism as (necessary) ideology (that is as concept of transformation).

Antiveganism has either (a) a theoretical blankspace of carnism or (b) advocates for carnism, because antiveganism either (a) forms a knowing of reality that disregards (unnecessary) suffering of sentient beings as necessary or nonexistant in sentient (non-human) beings or (b) has no problem with suffering of sentient beings.

Now, antiveganism arguing that veganism be a colonial ideology is a colonial praxis, because impersonates and directs anticolonial and decolonial praxis as deterministically carnist, while veganism is certainly not a praxis of asking indigenous people to adopt veganism, especially when one integrates historical continuities of carnist-colonial ideology.


Styx OP wrote (edited )

I think the parent-child and teacher-student dynamics can be egalitarian despite differences in power and authority

I kind of agree. I think we are a little bit more privileged in that the dominant mode of parenting in this corner of the world isn't that yank 'do as the Bible says' type of authoritarian nonsense which goes to such obscene depths that some children are forbidden to wear black clothes and date unless they are ready to marry. Although, of course, there are parents like that here too. But I would say it's more often than not seen for what it is and that sadly cannot be said about your average r/anarchy101 user. So it comes as no surprise to me that parenting and education (for its own obvious reasons) is such a heated topic.

I fully agree that it's awful to look at children as 'not fully human,' but at the same time, it is indisputable that they are unable to function as fully formed adults either -- especially with how our society currently operates. Unlike any other animal, it takes us years before we are able to take care of ourselves without any 'adult' supervision and even then we are still evolving and learning what's best for us. Setting the latter bit aside, parents/guardians make crucial health-related (diet, medical care, hygiene, sleeping schedule, etc.) and developmental decisions (education, social relations, cultural literacy, etc.) for us and no amount of teaching and explaining would enable a 6-year old, or even much older, to make those impactful decisions for themselves in an informed manner.

I am reluctant to call these decisions 'authoritarian,' but I wonder whether that's just wishful thinking. It might not be exactly the same as the state-citizen type of relationship, but I think it occupies a grey area that sometimes intersects with authoritarianism, and not necessarily because of the 'do as I say' attitude, but because parenting has a lasting impact upon every aspect of children's 'independent,' adult lives. My parents, for instance, let me roam free from a very early age (too early, in fact) and looking back at it through the lenses of the fucked-up situations that got me into, I don't think I'd be as negligent free-handed with my own children.

Anyway, I'm rambling too much, so I'll just finish by saying that, yes, I don't think that emphasising dominance as the indisputably detrimental force helps us to untie all of the knots, and although I myself am struggling to fully understand the difference Bertolo paints between 'neutral' norms/command&obey dominance, I like that he touches upon the areas that we consider to be taboo -- such as, say, that authority and power can be neutral or even necessary in some situations (and, I would add, that our own subjectivity determines what we consider to be authoritarian).


subrosa wrote

I think the parent-child and teacher-student dynamics can be egalitarian despite differences in power and authority (as Bertolo seems to use the terms). The potential of becoming egalitarian sorta implies a "not fully human" dynamic that I would wanna avoid, where the justification for domination, rule, archy, (and ideas of what constitutes power and authority) is naturalized, made necessary.

Chomskyist justified hierarchy territory, potentially. Which has me conclude that the move to domination doesn't necessarily untie the knot, but rather presents new challenges in translating common frameworks and analyses — from anti-governmentalism, anti-absolutism, anti-authoritarianism, etc.,etc. — to an opposition to domination. With similar strengths and weaknesses.

Aight, I'll finish reading the text now. Maybe things will clear up a bit more.


Styx OP wrote (edited )

Yeah it also made me think of r/anarchy101. So many pixels were wasted there on the discussions about what is authoritarian and what is not, and I like that this essay shifts the focus on domination. He goes through some contexts in which both authority and power could be 'j-word' (that's my paraphrasing though. Bertolo's essay pre-dates Chomsky's opus magnum by almost 20 years) and it's particularly helpful as he addresses both education and parenting. The parent-child relationship, for example, starts as asymmetrical in terms of power relations, but as the child grows it has the potential of becoming egalitarian (and the same could be said about the teacher-student dynamics.)

The indisputably 'bad' word here is not so much the authority or power (which he interestingly makes synonymous with cultural and social norms) but domination, especially when paired with authority and power. And that's a useful, straightforward clarification, especially for r/@101. It's just a shame that it's a really dense and somewhat rambling essay that only a few people would have enough patience to read till the end.

I also liked how Bertolo complicated the idea of freedom, which perhaps is something we do not want to hear about, but maybe we should. He wrote some other essays about it that might be worthy of a read. The final few paragraphs are super interesting too. He talks about both domination and anarchism as kinds of 'mutations' that compete to transform the environment/society. I really enjoyed the image this metaphor paints.


subrosa wrote (edited )

I'll save it for later cause it's just a bit too demanding for a post-midnight reading, but I have a feeling this should be a useful clarification. In at least some contexts. If nothing else, I can tell the author is careful with the words and concepts pulled in.

My first year of answering questions on r/anarchy101 (as a way of figuring shit out for myself), half the time I relied on exploiting the ambiguity in "authorize."

Proudhon probably wasn't all that consistently negative with "authority" either, there's the occasional clarification like:

I wrote in 1840 that profession of political faith, as remarkable for its brevity as its energy: I am an anarchist. I posited with that word the negation, or rather the insufficiency of the principle of authority…

and in other places, authority initiates and affirms, while liberty critiques, reflects and concludes. The two need and complete each other, at least in the abstract. Which complicates the whole "against authority" thing we like to do, at least a little. Probably not unlike the "against power" position.


asere_que_vola wrote

Hi Tequila_Wolf

Have you read Atassa (#1 & 2)? Some of the texts there address indiscriminate attacks outside of the anarchist lens that occurred throughout the past, especially related to indigenous vs. the colonizers.

Of course, there is also this text with more of an anarchist focus throughout the past (before eco-extremist word existed).


halfway_prince wrote

we've seen you go through a lot on this site. at least from my perspective it seems like you've gone from 100% fully committed to anarchism (lifestylism, big ideas for mutual aid) to 0% committed. What that indicates to me is there's a fear you have of only be semi-committed - that if you're going to do something you have to go all-in and be the absolute best most consistent anarchist better than all those fake reddit anarchists. Since it's proving difficult to do that and also stay mentally healthy / support your family etc. you've just said "well, screw all of it - i guess i'm a failure of an anarchist so may as well just accept it and deal with what's going on".

Treating a political ideology/movement as a hobby that you've decided you just aren't good enough at to try at all. It's the card you can always play as a white dude of just tapping out of any type of ideology or struggle bc it's not fun and exciting any more and it's easier to convince yourself that you must just not really believe those things, rather than do the hard work of like building a more sustainable lifestyle commitment to something you deeply believe which requires forgiveness and acceptance of your own limitations and mistakes.

I've also had this experience - and what you said about raddle feeling like an old friend that you just can't connect with resonates with me. Trying to genuinely unlearn the worst behaviors in this world isn't about posting the most edgy anti-civ shit on an internet forum. Nor is it easy to dedicate your life genuinely to trying to build / maintain some semblance of subversive lifestyle (where you can support yourself and family but still live out some little anarchies), but it's a hell of a lot easier than the path you're going down - gaslighting yourself into thinking you don't care about the issues you've dedicated hundreds of hours to reading and writing about until your brain turns to mush from the strain of cognitive dissonance (or more likely you turn ultra conservative bc you need to have a framework that can justify your choices).

i'll say what i always say - you need more people around who you can talk to in real life, and you may need to change your behaviors to get along with them. lower your standards if that's what's needed. you need a support system and something to tether you.


Kinshavo wrote

I do know of indigenous uprising, but the whole "eco-extremism" thing is a very recent ideology as a such, maybe you could see elements of eco-extremism in some amazon tribes, mapuches and many other indigenous people fighting for their land and their way of life. For me eco-extremism is really tied to attassa and ITS, so maybe in Chile ITS really have ties with the Mapuche struggle. For me this ideology is alien to any indigenous people, it's a Trojan horse like national anarchism, you can see the entryism of European fascist groups in this milieu. Terrorist attack are not a thing for any indigenous movement and the alignment of ITS with O9A (with Luciferiana European mythology) demonstrate this.


Kinshavo wrote

The only case that I would agree with you is the case of indigenous people being massacred by mining, deforestation and other activities. The average city dweller and ever the person already inserted in the modern world don't have in their daily life situations akin to what BIPOC suffer in the context of racism and xenophobia.

When we say eco-extremism, generally we don't talk about indigenous people, maybe in Chile one of the objectives is disguise as Indigenous as possible bc at the end you are descendants of the indigenous people, but again they are not the indigenous themselves.