Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

CircleA wrote

Best way is to look at the anlib subs and see who they cite while they defend democracy

https://old.reddit.com/r/LibertarianSocialism/comments/q9bwq9/anarchists_against_democracy_in_their_own_words/

https://old.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/q9byq3/anarchists_against_democracy_in_their_own_words/

Of course, the link on r/LeftWithoutEdge was deleted immediately because being an anarchist is very edgy I suppose.

3

cretin OP wrote

Machine-assisted translation:

[received by Contra Info on Oct. 13, 2021]

La Paz, Bolivia: Responsibility Claim for Incendiary Device at the Chilean Consulate

The Calacoto neighborhood in the South Zone of the city of La Paz, where the rich take refuge behind their walls and their private security guards, saw their passivity interrupted by the placement of an incendiary device composed of 10 liters of gasoline, black powder and a timer, which unfortunately did not meet its objective.

The detonation system was powered by a 9v battery which, when the circuit was closed, had to heat a resistor that, in contact with the powder, would cause the fuel to ignite. We do not know the reason why the explosion did not take place, since the information released in the press about the characteristics of the device is falsified. The system had already been put to the test, but we think that what could have failed was the battery, or, if not, the device was deactivated before its detonation.

The power and its repressive apparatus have attacked anti-authoritarian spaces and compas that irreducibly resist confinement in different territories. This action is a wink of complicity, solidarity and revenge with all those comrades kidnapped in the dungeons of the States.

Let it be clear that the viciousness with which the Chilean State has used prison to punish those who declare themselves at war will not go unanswered.

In the face of the repressive onslaught, not a step back!

In the continuity of the offensive is where the compas are present in the streets. Those of us who are outside assume with joy the task of reminding the privileged that none of their buildings and representatives are free from the attack of organized rage.

Let them know here and throughout the region that no constituent or reform process of the capitalist state is going to stop anarchic action. It will continue to emerge even in the apparently most sterile territories.

In concrete action, solidarity becomes more than a slogan.

We salute the comrade Boris (1)

International solidarity with prisoners at war! Until the last stone falls on prison society!

(1) hospitalized in the Grand Est of Metz (France) since the morning of Saturday 7 August 2021 after a fire in his cell.

From the press: "The Fire Department found this Monday a device described as a 'fake explosive device' at the front of the Consulate of Chile in the southern area of ​​La Paz. (…) The case was investigated by the FELCC [Special Force to Fight Crime] in the southern zone, but security personnel from the Consulate and the Chilean Police Attaché have also been contacted."

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Thanks, I'll add them in a bit. The main purpose of this wiki is to get through to authority-happy ancoms, so it works best when its their 18th century idols being quoted. Then they see the sfuff from contemporary anarchists and hopefully get pried from their little bubble.

5

asere_que_vola wrote

AJODA #60 was an issue specifically focused on the topic of democracy: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/ajoda-60 There are two authors from that issue currently missing from your list, to perhaps include.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/democracy Currently 201 texts listed here. Certainly not all what you're looking for, but perhaps some hidden gems.

5

Kinshavo wrote (edited )

You can't outspoon a Spooner

🤡

I was thinking that besides American Liberal ideology, founding fathers &all, there's the influence of the ultra-left and left communism in this tendency of reconciliation of Democracy and Anarchism.

The idea of soviets, working councils, a "universal" union, people sharing decisions and the Power™... But then why say you are an (An)Archist? They imagine democratic assemblies and direct democracy as a form of technique, devoid of any ideology? A pure form to manifest the individual will among the collective?

I was found the student assemblies boring and the whole bureaucracy of taking turns to reach consensus was ableist in fact, the most talented speakers would drive the assembly to a conclusion everytime and then the official position would represent all the individual opinions synthetized as a monolith

4

ziq wrote

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

My issue with Bookchin is that he's an authoritarian entryist who did more damage to anarchy in the 90s and 00s than any single individual. His ideology is hierarchical af as I outlined in my essay about communalism. The fash jacketing of anarchists was just a small part of his entryist project to convert ancoms to Marxist-Bookchinism.

People who read Bookchin and decide his ideas are good are not anarchists because his ideas are not anarchist. They're authoritarian. An involuntary hierarchical crypto-statist social system whose citizens are forbidden from breaking with it is authoritarian. People who adhere to communalism are thus authoritarians.

There is no nuance involved - either you embrace anarchy or you embrace authority. There is no in between. Anarchy isn't a pick and choose proposition. It's all or nothing. But you know that, all entryists know exactly what they're doing when they pretend anarchy is nuanced, debatable, undefined, open to interpretation.

You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture.

You can read all the books you want and no one said otherwise, stop strawmanning.

You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments

They're only rationalist if I proclaim them to be rationalist and I don't claim to be a rational person because that would create hierarchy over anyone I'd deem irrational by comparison. I don't fuse the language of authority into my opinions when I spout them because unlike Bookchin, I'm an anarchist.

Communalists don't support the status quo.

Industrialism is the status quo. Civilization and the city are the status quo. Authority and hierarchy are the status quo. Democracy is the status quo. Production and extraction are the status quo. Agriculture is the status quo. Leaders / councils / rulers are the status quo. They support the status quo.

you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner

Me telling you what I think of you is not authoritative. Me calling you an entryist is not authoritative. You trying to water down the meaning of words like authoritative by calling things authoritative that are not in any way authoritative is entryism designed to normalize and excuse actual authority by pretending that it's something else.

as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent.

You are my enemy because entryism is malicious and manipulative and ultimately sabotages anarchy. Not because you disagree with me.

Now please note that me calling you my enemy and other unkind things does not create authority because authority is not the act of voicing criticism of someone's politics on the internet. Authority is structural and coercive. I'm exerting no authority over you by voicing my objections to your politics in a public forum. Authority is not disagreement, it is not criticism, it is not cutting insults, it is authority.

Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits.

If any of those traits are willfully authority building, such as entryism, such as greenwashing, then those people are not my friends. I don't need to be friends with people who work to subvert anarchy. If you don't want me to 'impose' my views and biases on you, then stop fucking debating me.

When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you.

People who try to tell me anarchy is about building micro states and forcing the majority's will on the minority are going to get called out for their entryism whether they're irl or online. I don't pull punches.

I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen.

I've listened to your opinion and responded to it point by point, spent literal hours doing so, but keep playing.

DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something?

Once again, my problem with you is the constant entryism in anarchist spaces, not that you're a communalist. Be a communalist all you want, just don't pretend a communalist can also be an anarchist and don't present yourself as an anarchist to unsuspecting baby ancoms while advocating for authority.

You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state.

Some barely-disguised class reductionism you got going there, but you are a Bookchinist so I'm sure it's super rationalist.

If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have.

I should accept your Marxist entryism and Bookchin as my lord and savior because individuals are dehumanized? Pass. I'll stick with my 'buzzwords' or in non-entryist speak: my principles.

It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

Calling an anarcho-Marxist an entryist is divisive, sectarian and breaks left-unity. Yes.

3

Esperaux OP wrote

"anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best"

Wait so your issue with Bookchin is that you see his works as fash jacketing yet you have no problem ignoring what other people have to say or what their personal views are to just broadly paint them all as authoritarians with no nuance?

I've made my own personal views and nuances on this clear.I already said I don't agree entirely with Bookchin's positions. You can read other books without having to obey it like some kind of scripture. Also there's a difference between calling anprims inherently eco fascist and pointing out that there is indeed an issue where some inadvertently align with neo malthusian outlooks. Multiple times I have spoken with anprims who effectively embraced the ideology because of what they see as a moral decline in the West which they blame on any movement focused on improvements for minority groups within the current dominant system. Their interest is not liberation. Again however they are not representative of anticivs.

Also rationalism is a little more complex than simply dictating to other people what is right and wrong. It's one of many different manners of which people inform their own personal decisions. You seem to make a lot of rationalist arguments when advocating anticiv positions yourself. Pointing towards issues like mass production and mass extraction. Weighing the odds of preserving a capitalist system to the necessities of embracing a post capitalist system. It also served as an influence in critiques of establishments like the churches. Prominently featured in Bakunin's earlier critiques of religion from an anarchistic perspective. Then again you aren't obligated to be a rationalist though I don't see where you're going with this. Communalists don't support the status quo. Social ecology as well which is apart from communalism doesn't support the status quo either.

"it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways"

Why do you keep trying to impose your own views and biases onto others? For someone so passionate about anarchism you speak and approach people in an authoritative imposing manner as if someone who agrees on 70 percent of what you say is your enemy because they don't agree 100 percent. It's not one camp or the other when it comes to all these traits. Individuals are complex and often have overlapping traits. When interacting with people irl not a single one of them are going to think exactly like you. I'm so tired of having to explain my position to someone who clearly isn't willing to listen. DId some communalist stop to call the cops on you spray painting a bridge or something? You seem to base your entire ideology off of distinguishing yourself from "the left" instead of actually focusing on the horrors of the capitalist drive for work and the imposing nature of the state. If you've actually seen the shit that goes into dehumanizing individuals I'd expect you to be able to approach others from a more understanding nuanced perspective as opposed to just acting like your way is the only way and any slight deviation is whatever buzzword you have. It's no different from my interactions with leftcom groups who loved to lob accusations of "idealism" or "counterrevolutionary" to delegitimize and alienate any dissenting views

1

ziq wrote

His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things.

everything that doesn't fall in line with his democratic Marxism is reactionary if the essay didn't make that clear. egoists, nihilists, anticivs, taoists, anyone who isn't a 'social anarchist', which he later expanded to anyone who isn't a bookchinist (communalist)

Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist?

rationalism, much like centrism, humanism and dialectical materialism, is just a handy tool for pseudo intellectual authoritarians and crypto-authoritarians (like bookchinists) to shame people who don't immediately fall in line with the safe status quo they're working hard to uphold

rationality is whatever most benefits the ideological worldview of the person who is dictating to others what is and isn't rational

see: bookchin's disgust for any spirituality, ideology or way of life that conflicts with his own

I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

repeatedly comparing 'lifestyle' anarchists to fascists, saying they end up embracing fascist and reactionary ideology is fash jacketing 101 and the only reason you won't admit it is because you're taken by his authoritative, scientific-sounding pratterings, while heavily internalizing his spiteful disdain for anarchy and then repeating it at every opportunity because it provides you comfort to see yourself as a logical, reasoned, rational, ecology-minded super-leftist who is oh so superior to the gutter anarchists and their dirty, unkempt, uncivilized, undemocratic, anti-organizational, angry music playing, spray painting, incoherent, inarticulate, lawn-trampling, nihilistic ways

anyone who reads bookchin and comes out of it liking bookchin is a closet authoritarian at best

3

cretin OP wrote (edited )

Yeah I really enjoy Vallée's work, even though he is a self-described 'venture capitalist' lol...I came across a google drive upload not too long ago full of UFO books and many of his books are among them in PDF format which was a great find for me! This is the link if you are interested: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vlY512iwG0yrTFE3Hha__lhBZq9zavQE

His theories are definitely some of the more interesting and thought-provoking ones in the entire field of UFOlogy and I like how he doesn't claim to definitively know all the answers, unlike a lot of the current crop of UFO authors / celebrities - many of whom just seem to be complete grifers with zero credibility.

I've actually been reading a new book Vallée co-authored with Paola Leopizzi Harris called 'Trinity: The Best Kept Secret' that is pretty interesting..here's a promo blurb for it...

"Hard evidence has existed since 1945 for the actual recovery of unidentified flying craft in the United States, according to a new research book, "TRINITY: The Best-Kept Secret" written by two seasoned analysts of the global patterns behind the UFO phenomenon. Italian investigative journalist Paola Leopizzi Harris and French-born information scientist Dr. Jacques F. Vallée have teamed up to uncover the details of a New Mexico crash in 1945, fully two years before the well-known incident at Roswell and the famous sighting by pilot Kenneth Arnold in 1947.

Over several site investigation surveys Harris and Vallée reconstructed the historic observations by three witnesses, two of whom are still living, who described to them the circumstances of the crash, with details of the recovery of a nearly-intact flying vehicle and its occupants by an Army detachment. Combining their long experience in field research around the world, the authors have documented the step-by-step efforts by the military to remove the object, an avocado-shaped craft weighting several tons, from the property where it crash-landed during a storm.

Surprisingly, the literature of the field only includes a few passing mentions about the case, and only one (foreign) TV documentary has mentioned it, but the correlation between the crash of the extraordinary object and the explosion of the first atom bomb at White Sands, less than 20 miles away, has been missed. Harris and Vallée suggest that the correlation is significant for physical, geographic and biological reasons, quite apart from the obvious strategic implications.

The witnesses were able to observe not only the actual crash of the object on their property but every step of the military efforts to lift it and take it away. Fearing retaliation, they remained silent for some 60 years about what they had seen and done over those nine days at the site while the recovery was proceeding. When placed in the context of the history of chemical and physical analysis of retrieved UFO debris--an area where Harris and Vallée have long collaborated—the devices observed by the witnesses raise a number of very important scientific questions."

Unfortunately I had to pay for it as I was unable to find it for free online, but hopefully somebody converts it to PDF or something soon ! :-)

3

Esperaux OP wrote (edited )

Well I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from and thanks for providing the proper context. This definitely reads out in a manner that can be used as ammunition to strawman anprim and anticiv positions. I don't really see individualism and collectivism as natural opposites personally. Though this seems to come out of an already existing argument between the so called "social"anarchist current and the "individualist" anarchist current. Such as earlier debates that arose during Malatesta's time between organizationalists and anti organizationalists.

I notice in the quoted paragraphs you provided Bookchin reference his disdain for things like Taoism which I find has many interesting influences to learn from. Though this is definitely consistent with his earlier hostility towards anything he saw as "mysticism". His critique seems to be more focused at elements that retain or promote a reactionary approach to things. Would anticivs be considered anti rationalist? Also in terms of anti technologism it's clear that not all anticivs see all forms of technology as needing to be destroyed. I don't agree with Murray Bookchin's overall critique of what he calls lifestyle anarchism but I don't think he was necessarily calling anticivs the fascists.

"Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents."

For example this part sticks out the most to me because this seems to be fairly descriptive of things like the modern libertarian movement in the United States. They promote themselves on this hyper individualistic outlook going on to rebrand capitalism as a form of individualism. Yet rightwing libertarian communities tend to hold a strange relationship with white nationalist or even outright fascists.

Again I don't personally agree with Bookchin's framing of anarchism either being only organization or lifestyle. I also agree a number of these points are indeed used to strawman anticivs who are lumped in with this critique. Though I don't think this is here to specifically call anticivs fascists but rather influences that come out in relation to these currents. Again this can be seen with groups like ITS or readings like Atassa which again I understand are not anticiv representative even though many people use these as representation of their positions.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

for not wanting to live in mud huts or whatever

reds always with the casual racism disguised as morality

what if we try to do better without immediately killing off seven+ billion humans but we'll be vomming hard the entire time we're doing it?"

speaking of cultists, u seem to be confusing civilization (ongoing slavery, incarceration, hunger, poverty, war, disease, mass death) for anti-(all those things)

4

ziq wrote

You're seriously going to make me quote your guy to you? k, i've got time to kill.

this is all from his prototypical attack on all 'individualists', but especially anticivs ("primitivists") who he mentions more than any other current in the essay

First he establishes that the 'lifestyle anarchists' he's writing the essay to smear are anti civilization and individualistic:

More recent works on lifestyle anarchism generally sidestep Stirner’s sovereign, all-encompassing ‘I,’ albeit retaining its egocentric emphasis, and tend toward existentialism, recycled Situationism, Buddhism, Taoism, antirationalism, and primitivism — or, quite ecumenically, all of them in various permutations. Their commonalities, as we shall see, are redolent of a prelapsarian return to an original, often diffuse, and even petulantly infantile ego that ostensibly precedes history, civilization, and a sophisticated technology — possibly language itself — and they have nourished more than one reactionary political ideology over the past century. [...]

He continues to strawman us all through the essay, again very specifically singling out anticivs, nihilists, egoists and insurrectionists:

...the shift among Euro-American anarchists away from social anarchism and toward individualist or lifestyle anarchism. Indeed, lifestyle anarchism today is finding its principal expression in spray-can graffiti, post-modernist nihilism, antirationalism, neoprimitivism, anti-technologism, neo-Situationist ‘cultural terrorism,’ mysticism, and a ‘practice’ of staging Foucauldian ‘personal insurrections.’[...]

He goes on to equate our individualism with hierarchy and fascism:

In its amoralism, this elitism easily lends itself to the unfreedom of the ‘masses’ by ultimately placing them in the custody of the ‘unique ones,’ a logic that may yield a leadership principle characteristic of fascist ideology

He again equates us with fascists:

Social anarchism is radically at odds with anarchism focused on lifestyle, neo-Situationist paeans to ecstasy, and the sovereignty of the ever-shriveling petty-bourgeois ego. The two diverge completely in their defining principles — socialism or individualism. Between a committed revolutionary body of ideas and practice, on the one hand, and a vagrant yearning for privatistic ecstasy and self-realization on the other, there can be no commonality. Mere opposition to the state may well unite fascistic lumpens with Stirnerite lumpens, a phenomenon that is not without its historical precedents.

I could keep quoting all night but..

keep sealioning, entryist.

5