Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

qimerra wrote

Social anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, being new to it all. Also radicals I meet seem to feel the same themselves.

9

Spinfuga wrote

Do you consider yourself an anarchist with the "freedom from rulers" definition? I would say I am that. I am a person who believes that. That is everything. lol I remember transitioning to anarchism. "I'm not being myself somehow." That's what I thought. Over time I got used to it and it has had many benefits in my life. I wouldn't go back to any other thing. I am solidly content with that. lol Different approaches yield different outcomes. When you think about things from the core principles things get illuminated clearly. When you don't it's not as easy. "Things are not so easy to think about here" is what you might be thinking if you are using a framing outside of anarchism. But with that view things get defined pretty effectively. I am looking to meet anarchist people. I would say it is a good thing to be here. I am surprised to see it and beginning to end grateful. Inarguable gift from heaven. lol

2

Majrelende wrote

The population density is low, and I know of no actual anarchist groups, though I have seen some Ⓐ symbols around. I expect that people are afraid to speak without anonymity, but my guess is that the area has a higher anarchist population than others— just disorganised— considering the culture.

I am a bit of a social hermit, though, so if there are any groups, I would probably not know of them.

6

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Live way the hell out in the middle of nowhere in a state that's basically the buckle of the Bible Belt. All that in addition to crippling anxiety and terrible social skills.

6

CaptainACAB wrote

I lack viable transportation, have the barest possible minimum of social skills, and the idea of meeting up with a group of people calling themselves anarchists makes me suspicious for a variety of reasons.

6

[deleted] wrote

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

oh, come on, that's just an ideological fetish then. don't you have to actually, you know, co-create the objectives of your desires with others in order to fulfill them?

2

[deleted] wrote

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

I mean, you're just latching on to your misunderstanding of definitions right now. I am not using the word in a sexual sense at all, if that's what you're assuming.

You can't do anarchism entirely alone, this is just an edgier form of liberalism, there is no social future in it and no way for it to reproduce. This is just my opinion.

Sure, there are many toxic people who are anarchist identifying, 100% agree. Been burned by them. I totally disagree with the implication I perceived in your words that one shouldn't try to work with other like minded people, which in my case would be anarchists. You don't have to agree with me, I'm sure you have valid reasons for feeling what you feel.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

You can't do anarchism entirely alone

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. One of Dionysus' responses was that anyone can call themselves an anarchist, even when they uphold beliefs that contradict anarchism, which is true and happens often. Which is one of the reasons why the idea of meeting up with a group of people calling themselves anarchists makes me suspicious. I can probably work with red anarchists, but ancaps are inherently my opposition.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Surely you don't think "ancaps" are anarchists? They're capitalists, aren't they? Isn't it reifying their position to validate them as anarchists? That's why I don't do that, personally.

what I am talking about are actual anarchists, not people who are trying to colonize anarchist ideology & aesthetics from the outside in service of hierarchy. There are plenty of problematic actual anarchists: I'm curious why another anarchist would come to the conclusion that it's better to be skeptical of anyone under that heading, instead of taking it on a case by case basis, because that's just so contradictory to my point of view and I find that interesting.

But I don't think you are really engaging, you're bringing up people of entirely different ideological camps. obviously we all hate ancaps, at least I would hope lol

2

CaptainACAB wrote

Surely you don't think "ancaps" are anarchists? They're capitalists, aren't they? Isn't it reifying their position to validate them as anarchists? That's why I don't do that, personally.

No. But they think they are and they call themselves anarchists. All the time. And nothing would stop them from labeling their meetups as anarchist. And we can't really stop them from doing so.

I'm curious why another anarchist would come to the conclusion that it's better to be skeptical of anyone under that heading, instead of taking it on a case by case basis, because that's just so contradictory to my point of view and I find that interesting.

If you're talking about me, it's because I just don't trust easily. If you want a reason for that conclusion, just chalk it up to my personality, feelings, and experiences finding it justified. If you're talking about anyone else, I can't answer for them.

But I don't think you are really engaging, you're bringing up people of entirely different ideological camps.

Okay. I think I can see why you view this the way you do. To further clarify, I'm not opposed to working with "actual" anarchists at all.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Okay. I think I can see why you view this the way you do. To further clarify, I'm not opposed to working with "actual" anarchists at all.

Cool, okay. Now that the ancap/CSA red herring is addressed and put aside, that's what I'm curious about peoples' critiques of: why one shouldn't work with anarchists, or why anarchists would be unnecessary to the implementation of...anarchy. But I don't think there's anyone who is really articulating this counterpoint anymore, which is a shame because I was, again, genuinely interested

2

CaptainACAB wrote

I'm curious about peoples' critiques of: why one shouldn't work with anarchists, or why anarchists would be unnecessary to the implementation of...anarchy.

I could make an attempt at arguing for these points if you're still interested. I can't promise to be good at it, but I have a few reasons in mind for why someone would come to those conclusions.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

sure, let's talk!

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Well, we could talk on this thread; make a new one and hash it out there; or I could temporarily open my PMs and we could do it one on one. I'd prefer either of the first two, if only so others could join in on the discussion and benefit from it.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

Well, instead of blithely and weakly insulting my point of view with one word responses, perhaps you would be interested to share why you have a different perspective? I figure it might have something to do with specific experiences.

To be honest, I don't take seriously as part of an anarchist community someone who flies american flags and then calls themselves an anarchist. That's the same crap that the libertarian/ancap crowd tries to resell, it's a little annoying that they try to steal a word in justification of an obviously different ideology (capitalism, racism, etc) but from where I'm standing it doesn't really support what you're saying about actual anarchists. I would like to understand your pov more, without these red herrings distracting from what is bound to be a more interesting point.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

Well, that's exactly what it sounded like (to me). I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking you to clarify, but you're just deflecting right now. Maybe in a little bit we can have this conversation, I am genuinely interested to hear your point of view. Feel free to DM me about it if you would prefer. Either way, I'm going to disengage now, I was not trying to take this to an ad hominem place at all...

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

Because you called that out with no further context as something that offended you, so I wanted to clear that up in case there was a misunderstanding. A similar thing happened on this forum a while ago, where I used a word with two meanings while expressing a point of view that some disagreed with, and many users interpreted what I said completely incorrectly.

It was not a knock against you, at least it was not intended that way. Text can be difficult to imbue with clarity.

1

greentea wrote

Being bad at technology, and not understanding the platforms that would create the type of anonymity that would probably make people feel comfortable with meet-ups

5

[deleted] wrote

3

greentea wrote

thank you very much! I don't remember offhand what it was called, but I remember there was a fairly recent attempt to arrange a meet-up, but I was a bit thrown off by the logistics of joining through an online platform. I guess I next time I should try ask for advice it when it happens

4

anextremelyonlineG wrote

  1. infiltration concerns. Massive honeypots can and will be targeted, nothing is more existentially threatening to the state than anarchism, not even fascism or tankie ideologies come close if we're talking about well developed/large/matured groups of people. That's why anarchism is so subculturalized to marginal groups (youth/queer/punk/etc), and constantly portrayed this way to outsiders. and that's why you'll get infiltrators from both far-right and state actors whenever an anarchist space crops up just about anywhere, but particularly online.

  2. lack of purpose. So, is the social glue going to be there? How is the group/meeting place/forum/etc going to serve the needs of the people who are part of it? That's the only way you're going to see people investing their precious remaining time and energy, that isn't sucked off by work or some other form of oppression, into an inherently risky endeavor.

  3. safety. Many anarchists are overcommitted, isolated, have trauma, whatever. This makes for very dysfunctional social communities and spaces. I joke with a friend that anarchists are all in "an abusive relationship with each other" in my town. Even in large cities with sizeable anarchist presences, the communities are still surprisingly human-sized, and subject to many problems owing to traumatized people retraumatizing each other, or just plain sabotaging things intentionally or not. You need to have a process for healing people and dealing with the bad actors, it always seems to happen with particular intensity in anarchist communities and groups.

5

d4rk wrote

Most of them are dead or in Manila/Davao

3

El_Sabate wrote

Time is extremely limited. Even if I had time, I am aware of no meetups and no groups in my very rural part of the US.

3

JOG_YOUR_MENTAL wrote

.distrust of American anarchist groups.

i've met a bunch of anarcho-loners from participating in community gardening and athletics, because they favor folks that are young or very in-touch.

.you can't just go around being the edgy guy who encourages well-off people to commit CLASS SUICIDE and expect results. (maybe free drugs!)

.Try Making Your Own Anarchist At Home

3

bloodrose wrote

The only publicly advertised meeting of anarchists is a long drive away and they meet at a time that would mean I would have to 1. leave work early and 2. stop going to therapy. So, uh, no idea how to meet any. I'm an extrovert so meeting new people makes me happy, not scared...i just don't know how to find them.

2

ziq wrote

A healthy hatred of humans.

1