Submitted by confusedarchist in AskRaddle

So first of all I have identified as an anarchist for 2 months since a kind gentleman linked me to a Noam Chomsky interview on Youtube. But more recently several people on facebook have linked me to this site, specifically the wikis when I say to them anarchism is for justified hierarchies (which Noam agrees with me with) and the other thing he agrees with is that we should vote for the less evil (Joe Biden) to defeat fascism because supporting the best version of the state is more important than being against the state without exception.

So the more I talked with anarchists the more confused I became because they say even democracy and free speech is not anarchism, and again they link me to pages here. This makes me think anarchism is not what I am at all because I think democracy / freedom is the most important thing in our society. If the people don't get to vote for what we want or say what we want to say, then how can this be an ideology for the common people?

For these reasons, I think I might be a statist / communist, what do you think? Can I still be an anarchist if I support voting, democracy, freedom to speak and justified hierarchies?

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

When you are thinking about "justified hierarchies", please, think about who are justifying them. I'm pretty sure, that at some point of history, people were justifying monarchy and slavery.

If the people don't get to vote for what we want or say what we want to say, then how can this be an ideology for the common people?

Common people can say what they want and face consequences for their words without hiding behind the shield of "Free Speech". And, in the same manner, instead of voting for what they want, they can just do what they want and, again, face consequences for their actions.

Can I still be an anarchist if I support voting, democracy, freedom to speak and justified hierarchies?

No. It's not a gatekeeping or something. It's just against the whole definition of anarchy. I don't think you should worry about it too much - if it's not your cup of tea, then it would be healthy to stop clinging to it and enjoying being yourself without putting yourself into position you are uncomfortable to be in.

10

confusedarchist OP wrote

please, think about who are justifying them

Yes, exactly. That is how we tell the good from the bad hierarchies.

There are good hierarchies that don’t come from bad power structures. “Jack has a medical license” is a hierarchy, but it doesn’t create a power structure. “You should listen to Dr. Jack when he tells you to take your medicine” is kind of technically a power structure, but it’s both just and justified based solely on the actions and the relevant knowledge of one individual person who has studied for years to become a doctor, not generations of horded riches and power by Dr. Jack's family. For this reason a doctor is a just or good hierarchy, unlike a President, who is a very unjust or bad hierarchy because his power is not earned.

face consequences for their actions.

This is an argument for punishment / punitive justice over rehabilitative justice, which seems to me to be against my understanding of anarchism from Noam Chomsky, unless punitive justice is also something the raddle strain of anarchism promotes?

It's just against the whole definition of anarchy.

But why does this site get to decide what anarchism is for everyone? Every time I say what anarchism is in my opinion, all the people yell at me to read raddle and learn but the things on raddle aren't what I support, not at all. Hating free speech, democracy, rehabilitation and good hierarchies seems very reactionary to me.

1

ziq wrote

Doctoring is just a job, like baking or painting or plumbing or bicycle building. It's a skill that someone has learned and now chooses to share with their community. How does that create a hierarchy?

The only way a doctor becomes a hierarchy is if they're given power by an authority to force drugs or surgery on people who don't want them. If the doctor is forcing medical procedures on people against their will, then there's a hierarchy in place. Someone has created violent authority (most often a state) in order to force patients to submit to the will of the doctor.

If a doctor is just offering voluntary assistance, and patients can choose to refuse treatment if they want, that's not a hierarchy.

Telling people they have to leave your space because their bigoted rhetoric is harmful to you and your friends is not punitive justice. It's simple freedom of association. No one has a right to force themselves on others. If you won't respect people's boundaries then they have every right to ask you to leave their space.

Anarchy is a very simple, straight forward concept. "Against archy."

If you don't agree with that, then the logical action would be to not label yourself an anarchist, rather than try to subvert this very straightforward concept into something more in line with your pro-archy politics.

8

confusedarchist OP wrote

If a doctor is just offering voluntary assistance, and patients can choose to refuse treatment if they want, that's not a hierarchy.

But even if you agree to being treated, you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life, so how can he not be a (good) hierarchy? Your life depends on him being good at his profession and not making a mistake that kills you. Your life is in his hands. I'm sorry but that's a hierarchy. A good one. It just is.

Another thing... What if the patient has coronavirus but refuses to quarantine? They'll need to be made to quarantine by Dr. Jack, correct? So this is another proof of good hierarchy because if Dr. Jack doesn't make the patient quarantine against his will, everyone will get sick... If the patient is refusing to be sensible, we have no choice, we have to use good hierarchy to make him stay inside, to protect the rest of the people in society.

If you won't respect people's boundaries then they have every right to ask you to leave their space.

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out? Who decided they have ownership of the place? Who gave them the authority to exclude me? Why should I listen to them? Who made them judge, jury and executioner and why is their opinion more important or valid than mine? Just because they say I'm a bigot? Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means? What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone? Why should anyone follow their orders?

Anarchy is a very simple, straight forward concept. "Against archy."

But who defines what archy means or what to be against it means? You? Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist? Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle? A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you? Why should we listen to raddle instead of him? Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

If you don't agree with that, then the logical action would be to not label yourself an anarchist, rather than try to subvert this very straightforward concept into something more in line with your pro-archy politics.

You don't decide if my politics are proarchy, you don't have that right. Only I can decide if I'm an anarchist or a statist. It's not for you to label me. And I haven't decided yet.

2

ziq wrote

you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life [...] Your life depends on him being good at his profession and not making a mistake that kills you. Your life is in his hands. I'm sorry but that's a hierarchy. A good one. It just is.

How is trust a hierarchy? I trust my partner not to murder me in my sleep. I trust a baker not to put sawdust in my pies. I trust a doctor to prescribe the right remedy to treat an illness. Trusting the various people you interact with to not kill you doesn't give them authority over you and it doesn't create hierarchy when you put your trust in them. You're basically claiming that mutual aid is hierarchy right now.

What if the patient has coronavirus but refuses to quarantine?

If someone is deliberately endangering the lives of others, like in this example where they're wilfully spreading a virus, then using force to stop them is not a hierarchy as long as there's no monopoly on violence involved.

I know if someone with covid was coughing on me, I'd fuck them up for it. That doesn't make me an authority, it just makes me someone who doesn't like being coughed on by some selfish arrogant dipshit who knows they should be isolating.

If I decide to use force to stop the person who's trying to infect people with a virus, and I ask for no backing from a structural power like a state, then how am I creating hierarchy? It's no different than me defending myself against a mugger. Are you gonna claim that's a hierarchy too?

The virus spreader is trying to do harm to me and mine, so me fighting back and stopping them from doing further harm is simply self defence. Defending myself and my people from being infected with covid doesn't make me an authority and it doesn't create hierarchy. No one pinned a badge on me and told me I have authority over anyone. I just decided, hey, this person is deliberately making people sick, putting lives in danger, so I'm gonna use some force to make sure they stay in bed for the next couple weeks. I don't suddenly become a cop because I laid some murderous asshole out.

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out?

See, this is why democracy can fuck right off. If people decide they don't want you in their house because you're a racist or whatever, you don't get to vote yourself in or dictate to them how to run their lives. It's their fucking house. You think you can just show up at the door and demand you be given entry? Well, tough shit. It's their house. So long as they're not laying claim to more space than they can personally use, or claiming ownership over a public resource that belongs to everyone, you should just stfu and let them be.

Who decided they have ownership of the place?

Personal property. If people live somewhere, it's their space. You don't get to move in without their say so.

Who gave them the authority to exclude me?

There is no authority stopping you from forcing yourself into their house and there is no authority stopping them from killing you for it. That's anarchy.

Why should I listen to them?

So they don't kill you for invading their personal space. It's a pretty good motivator.

Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means?

They do. Their space, their rules.

What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone?

They're not making decisions for everyone, they're making decisions for themselves. They don't want you in their space. That's their decision.

Why should anyone follow their orders?

If you're an anarchist then you care about autonomy, freedom of association and self determination. That means you don't force yourself on people and invade their autonomy.

who defines what archy means or what to be against it means?

Anarchists do.

You?

For example.

Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist?

I never claimed to have any authority to do anything, but these words haven't been defined by me, they've been defined by generations of anarchists and by the evolution of language more generally. Whether or not my personal ideas about anarchy are accepted is up to other anarchists.

Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle?

I'd say that's a fair assessment of the general sentiment here.

A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you?

You sure are assigning the guy a lot of authority right now. Seems to fly in the face of the point you're trying to make.

Why should we listen to raddle instead of him?

No one has a gun to your head.

Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

The authority on anarchy? Are you trolling or what?

You don't decide if my politics are proarchy, you don't have that right. Only I can decide if I'm an anarchist or a statist. It's not for you to label me. And I haven't decided yet.

If I think you're not an anarchist, I'll say you're not an anarchist. Not really much you can do about it. Words mean things and if you appropriate words that I value and try to corrupt them or water them down, I'll speak up because that's who I am.

7

HelpOthers wrote

If OP is serious about the post, I honestly think they might just be figuring out what they believe.

It might be that they were introduced to the idea of anarchy from Noam and it interested them. From the way I see it, they are trying to fit what they used to believe (taught to believe) in with these new ideas and are likely dealing with cognitive dissonance from their paradoxes. From their vocabulary, it sounds like they grew up in a family that held/holds traditional, American, conservative values. Although, I could be wrong.

They seemed a little upset— especially in the paragraph of questions— so I appreciate your level-headed responses to OP’s questions.

6

ziq wrote

1st time I've been called level headed.

3

nadir wrote

But even if you agree to being treated, you're trusting Dr. Jack with your very life, so how can he not be a (good) hierarchy?

The term 'hierarchy' seems to be a point of confusion here. Maybe we could use the term 'systemically enforced power'* and then you would not be able to say that the doctor has any systemically enforced power over the patient.

So is there such a thing as a "good systemically enforced power"?

I'd say no.

* I don't stand by this term because I just threw it in there now, and it may well be horribly flawed, but hopefully it is ok for the point I'm trying to make.

6

nadir wrote (edited )

But who defines what archy means or what to be against it means? You? Who gives you the authority to define words and to say who is and isn't an anarchist?

Languages grow and change based on how they are used. All it takes is to convince any number of people to use words your way, but good luck getting people to work with any definition of 'anarchy' that doesn't relate to the words 'an' and 'archy', you'll probably have to convince people to redefine those too...

Is Noam Chomsky not an anarchist according to raddle?

Well you'll have to ask the official raddle spokesperson for their take on that, but as a long time raddle user (registered 5 days ago) I can share my two cents:

Noam Chomsky has many opinions that differ significantly from the ideas of other people who call themselves anarchists. Does that make him not an anarchist?
He does call himself an anarchist, but I call myself all sorts of flattering things and it doesn't really change much...

Even marxists would hesitate to call him a marxist as of 2020, but back in the day Chomsky's ideas would have positioned him amongst many people who identify as marxists. So does that make him a marxist?

A published professor with decades of experience in linguistics who has written more about politics than anyone of you? Why is raddle smarter and more authoritative than the primary authority on modern anarchism who is world renowned?

For such a "primary author on modern anarchism" he seems to have written very little on the subject...

See this very critical summary of Chomsky's writing on that topic.

Why should we listen to raddle instead of him?

Just listen to both and then make your own mind up.

I think it's fair to say that Chomsky is not an anarchist and 'anarchy' does mean 'against archy'.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

8

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

Indeed. he is a democratic socialist sympathetic to syndicalism.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

That doesn't mean he's not an anarchist, just that he doesn't claim to be some kind of expert.

1

HelpOthers wrote

but as a long time raddle user (registered 5 days ago) I can share my two cents:

I fucking lost it. Thanks for the laugh

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

the official raddle spokesperson for their take on that

Who is that?

does that make him a marxist?

Yes, but I think you have to be a Marxist to be an anarchist. Both are necessary.

2

mofongo wrote

That isn't very democratic though, is it? Who decided these people can throw me out? Who decided they have ownership of the place? Who gave them the authority to exclude me? Why should I listen to them? Who made them judge, jury and executioner and why is their opinion more important or valid than mine? Just because they say I'm a bigot? Who decides what qualifies as bigoted or what "respecting boundaries" means? What gives them the right to make these decision for everyone? Why should anyone follow their orders?

If a group of people tells you to GTFO, it's democratic, they decided as a group they don't want you with them. If you stick around, they will make you leave one way or another. This is something one should know by high school on experience alone.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

confusedarchist OP wrote

Until quite recently, in Ireland, when there were complications during birth and the doctor had to choose between saving the baby or the mother, the doctor was invested with that authority based on the religious values of that particular hospital. Countless women were killed with no choice in the matter.

It can be justified to put the baby first because it's younger / more innocent and has more years to live. I don't think it's religious values, it's just logic. The doctor has to make a choice between two lives and if he does the math, saving the baby is probably the answer. The bible doesn't say babies are more important than mothers, so it's not a Christian question.

1

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

About your example with Dr. Jack: that's not a hierarchy.

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

This is an argument for punishment / punitive justice over rehabilitative justice

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

punitive justice is also something the raddle strain of anarchism promotes

We aren't ideologically monolithic here. What you have read on wiki - is just a view of a specific person. It might or might not reflect views of other raddle users. However, I'm admiting that, personally for me, for an easy example, punching nazi in a face is more preferable then engaging in a rehabilitative justice, and I'm happily promoting this.

But why does this site get to decide what anarchism is for everyone?

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

EDIT:

Every time I say what anarchism is in my opinion, all the people yell at me to read raddle and learn

People are yelling at a confused person: "Read raddle!" There is something... satisfying in this.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

That's pure idiocy. If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy. You admit he is your superior.

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

Because speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed. We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

You realize the democratic process is punishing people right? Those who disagree with the outcome or are otherwise alienated by the process?

So why would someone who is subject to an authority, "democratic" or not, fighting against that authority, be somehow not anarchist to you?

As has been stated by others, if you don't like what anarchy is stop trying to appropriate and cling to the term anarchist, because it only pisses us off. In the end, if your idealistic society ever was reached, we'd still be fighting against your "anarchist" "democratic" process, by any means necessary.

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

If they disagree they are free to, but the will of the people has to be paramount. If they don't respect the democratic process they can leave the society.

Maybe you guys are the ones clinging to the term anarchist when you're not since you hate democracy so much.

−2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Herein lies the problem. You are someone who believes in the "will of the people" and "democracy" and don't give a shit about those marginalized by it. Leave the society, to what? The other "democratic" societies? That's a pointless endeavor.

Democracy is irrelevant to anarchy

Let me ask you this, what books, documentaries, or people other than a noam chomsky interview have you read, watched, or listened to about anarchism?

8

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy.

It's just trust, no? If I trust my partner to watch my back while I'm a torching prosecutor's car, this doesn't mean they have a hierarchy over me or making them my superior. Same with doctors. Please, give me your definition of hierarchy.

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

False. If I'll find your words or actions harmful - then I'll use any means necessary to stop you. Preferably, restorative. That's what anarchy is for me.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

Fucking nerd.

5

nadir wrote (edited )

Speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed.

What is being said about free speech here is two things:

  • What you call 'free speech' is actually far from free.
  • People should not be forced to put up with verbal abuse. So a universal rule making all verbal abusers immune from being held accountable is a bad idea.

Do you disagree with either of those points?

4

confusedarchist OP wrote

Yes of course. Free speech is absolutely free. It's the freedom to say what you want without being persecuted. It's the most basic freedom we have.

You don't have to put up with verbal abuse, you can just leave the conversation if you don't like what I'm saying.

2

onymous wrote

Meant to add this when I first saw this thread. In addition to what others have said, doctoring is also deeply flawed, and it's because of its existence as an authoritarian institution that alienates one from their own body. See the tag #DoctorsAreDickheads on Twitter for firsthand accounts from primarily disabled people

2

ziq wrote

personally i go to an unlicensed doc who works out of the back of his van. says he had the grades to get into medical school but he had too much shit to do

3

nadir wrote (edited )

I feel for you mate, I was brought up to think of those same things as pillars of freedom too, but after looking into it I changed my mind.

It might seem unthinkable to criticise those things but I urge you not to dismiss that criticism too easily. If they are as important as you suggest then surely any criticism of them should be taken seriously, so can I ask that you point out some specific things you disagree with in any anarchist critiques of those concepts?

Here are a few critiques written by u/ziq that are a good intro:

Democracy
Free Speech
Justified Hierachy/Authority

let us know which bits you take issue with :)

Edit: fixed broken link.

5

nadir wrote

There is also the tricky language sometimes used when referring to people with expertise like for example someone called Alice who has spent many years studying doohickeys.

You could say that "Alice is the leading authority on doohickeys" but that would not necessarily give Alice any authority on you if you happened to possess a doohickey (lucky you!) so that would not be a bad thing. So it's probably better to use the word 'expertise' rather that 'authority' in that case.

So to put that in terms of doctors, a doctor can be an 'authority on heart surgery techniques' or whatever, and that is a completely different thing to having authority over how heart surgery is actually done because everyone is free to ignore the expert advice of the doctor (not that they should in this case, but they do have the choice.)

5

train wrote

Does it matter? I find most socialists/anarchists ostensibly have the same goal. Ie communism as a marxist would describe it is largely anarchic. However, I think it's less useful to identify with one label. Rather I think understanding these terms as representative of overlapping, mixed, and often contradictory schools of thought.

You can find plenty of people who are against hierarchy but then within that group of people hierarchy is going to be defined differently. The same kind of think happens within marxists interpretations of what dictatorship of the proletariat means.

Overall, it seems to me most of these differences are either semantic or strategic. The former is useful for defining frameworks for how we can interpret the world while the latter I think is where we see substantiative differences among leftists.

Personally I wouldn't call myself an anarchist because I think some forms of hierarchy is useful in establishing and maintaining a more utopian society. I think I fit most closely with the label of democratic socialism. However, clearly some situations where I see power differentials and hierarchical dynamics may not be hierarchical according to some anarchists. Some socialists might not even consider the methods of revolutionary change I believe in to be Marxist. I myself think a number of demosocs aren't really demsocs because they believe in some forms of wealth accumulation.

All that is to say is that I don't believe what you call yourself really matters. Rather learn about various ideological and philisophical frameworks, means of organizing for change, and then organize as best you can. Worrying about if you're a statist or not is more likely to silo you into one school of thought when I really doubt any of us truly know the best way forward.

4

train wrote

I see what you're saying, but a socialist would call those same principles praxis and dual power. There is not really a true before or after in a socialist revolution either. There is only the perpetual remaking of society to create something where everyone can freely thrive.

Demsocs in particular engage in anarchic thinking including mutual aid and consensus building. Many of them have read Kropotkin and other anarchist thinkers. Their is a lot of overlap. Obviously there are differences but the underlying moral framework for Anarchism and socialism lies in empathy, solidarity, and valuing eachother's humanity.

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

I think you'll find my "goal", is far different than any marxist's.

Not everyone believes in utopia, or "more utopian", or "ideal" societies.

5

train wrote

Well then what is your goal, aim, objective, or whatever you want to call it? Utopian or not I assume you want people to be able to live better lives than we do now under capitalist hierarchy.

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

My goal is to get as far away from civilization as is reasonable. I have no goal for the whole earth for the reason I stated, as well as the fact that I understand not everybody wants or will want what I do. I want people to live better lives by living the life they want to live. You could call me an individualist, and I would mostly agree.

The thing about marxists, is that you will find essentially none that are anti-civ, and even less so will you find ones who truly agree with an anarchist definition of anarchy. Marxists are similar to the OP, in that they believe in, even at the end stage, democratic, communal processes ruling over the world. And they call this "anarchy", as far as I can tell, in a pretense to gain anarchist support in whatever revolution they want. I will have no part in a communist revolution.

5

train wrote

I understand not everybody wants or will want what I do. I want people to live better lives by living the life they want to live.

That's why demsocs in particular reject the notion of vanguardism. Obviously nobody can know what is best for each individual. However, if you believe in things like mutualism or collectivism in order to support eachother's search for finding their own way in life, then you share common values with socialists.

To be clear the reason I'm saying this isn't to convince anyone that socialism is the answer. Personally I prefer we shouldn't all believe in the same ideological framework given that none are likely to be be perfect.

My point rather is to connect with and understand belief systems of others that share similar moral frameworks and also be understood on those same grounds.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Rejecting vanguardism isn't enough. I reject collectivism as well. I do understand socialists and I disagree with them.

I get your point, but I think you are stretching it farther than it will be useful.

3

train wrote

What do you define as collectivism then? I'm curious.

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

A collective (direct democracy included) imposing their will on the individual

1

ziq wrote

the thing about anarchists is we know there's no such thing as stationary authority. As soon as you make allowances for authority, whatever "utopian society" you think you've built will rapidly disintegrate back into neoliberalism. Authority can't be reasoned with or kept in a cage to impede its growth. It's explosive and corrupts everything it touches.

So we really don't have the same goals as demsocs. Demsocs want to topically treat the infected area with aloe vera and hope it gets better, anarchists want to cut the disease out before it spreads and kills the body. We're not looking to give the system a makeover, we're looking to light the system on fire and dance in the ashes.

4

train wrote (edited )

You say anarchists and demsocs don't share the same goals but I don't really agree. I think most leftists aim to create a society that allows all to find true meaning and satisfaction from their own existence. How we get closer to that utopian ideal is where I think we generally disagree.

Also being a demsoc doesn't mean you aren't a revolutionary leftist. Rather the aim is to ensure said revolutionary remaking of society is accountable to people over any party or individual.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

The thing is anarchists who know what they're talking about don't have some kind of white picket fence end goal like you state socs. We don't believe authority is something that can ever be extinguished. Anarchy is the permanent ongoing opposition to authority wherever it forms, it won't stop forming just because you declare utopia. In fact, declaring utopia will hasten the death march of authority because now everyone will pretend everything's fine and insist we resign ourselves to "the utopia" which will inevitable be doublespeak because anyone who understands the nature of power knows utopia is a coercive fantasy. A carrot on a stick.

Anarchists have no end goal.

5

train wrote

I still don't see where we really differ. I agree with what you're saying. Utopian ideals are the goal of socialism in the same way understanding the universe is the goal of science. So call it an asymtote if you want whatever. I still assume you're intention is to better the world for all peoples. That's what I want. The remaining differences we have our semantic, philsophical, or strategic. Otherwise our intentions are fundamentally the same. That's my point.

I get that you may see socialism as an inherently disadvantageous framework for producing the intended outcome that you want, namely the abolition of authority and hierarchy. But that doesn't mean the people that subscribe to said ideological frameworks have opposing intentions. In fact demsocs are generally pretty open to learning about anarchist theory given the problem they see with centralization of authority and hierarchy.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

I still assume you're intention is to better the world for all peoples. That's what I want.

Neoliberals say the same thing about their "trickle down" theories. It doesn't mean we are the same as them. Wanting to make the world better for everyone is the stated goal of every political ideology outside of the ethno-nationalist ones, but even those people claim "segregation will make life better for all the races" so it really does apply to every ideology under the sun, even fascism. Saying we're the same politically because we want people to be happier is like saying vegans are the same ideologically as carnists because we all like things that taste good. It's meaningless.

When you really break it down, democratic socialism is just the system we already have with more checks and balances against the accumulation of wealth. It's not radical from an anarchist standpoint. And it heavily relies on electoralism, which really puts it at odds with anarchy, and after Sanders and Corbyn's historic losses, it should really be apparent that your methods don't work. Capitalism can't be reformed into compliance with democracy.

Any political practice that doesn't take a strong stand against authority as its basis and makes allowances for majority rule (democracy) is going to be at odds with anarchy. Don't forget the Bolsheviks were social democrats before they seized power, their authority constantly expanding and steamrolling all dissenters until it morphed right back into modern Russia's oligarchy, which I'd argue is the final form of state socialism. Whatever utopia you think you're working towards, what counts is the methods you use and those methods have been proven as colossal failures that don't liberate anyone.

We will have opposing intentions as long as you cling to oppressive concepts like states, electoralism, authority, political representatives, reform of capitalism, work, industrial expansion, etc.

4

train wrote

Neoliberalism is also an ideology with internal contradiction built with the purpose of protecting hierarchy and power differentials. It wasn't built in good faith. It also cannonizes people like John Maynard Keynes but then pretty much ignores his actual suggestions for managing an economy. Obviously socialist rhetoric can be coopted in a similar way but then Keynesianism is not Neoliberalism, Naziism is not socialism, and anarcho capitalism is not anarchism. Socialists and anarchists oppose the hierarchies protected by those reactionary ideologies and in that way intention clearly matters. It is not meaningless.

Saying we're the same politically because we want people to be happier is like saying vegans are the same ideologically as carnists because we all like things that taste good.

That's a stretch don't you think? Veganism is founded on a moral framework whereas carnism is founded on the perpetuation of an existing oppressive hierarchy. Though even though I personally find carnism reprehensible, I think intention matters. I can not help others learn about the contraditions within their own moral framework if they are not willing to learn or do not truly intend to respect other life.

However, a better example in my view would be the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in physics. Both are founded upon the same scientific and mathmatical methods. Both are aimed at developing a framework through which we can understand the universe. Yet they remain separate theories that can not be easily bridged, in part because our understanding of the natural world is too limited.

As for your critiques surrounding aspects of democratic centralism I certainly agree. However, now we are at the point where you are critiqueing socialist methodology. While I'm happy to engage in that conversation as I think we need to perpetually question ideology, that discussion is tangential to my main point.

Such a conversation is never going to be meaningful if we can't find others who have shared intentions, morals, etc and who are acting in good faith. Which is why I continue to believe until proven otherwise that socialists and anarchist share some fundamental simalarities upon which our ideologies are built.

3

confusedarchist OP wrote (edited )

You're unironically comparing democratic socialists to fascists? The difference is that socialists want equality and fascists want no equality and only oppression.

Saying that democracy is "at odds with anarchy" is completely disingenuous because only raddle anarchists hate democracy. The rest all think it's the most important part of the ideology.

1

polpotisevil2 wrote

I think you read that comment wrong, I'd go back over it if I were you

only raddle anarchists hate democracy

As opposed to who? The reddit anarchists and ivory tower pieces of shit like noam? Anarchists who "hate democracy" have been around for ages and ages, and whatever little internet bubble you came from cannot make it untrue. You might find some hopping trains, dumpster diving, backpacking, living anarchy every day of their lives. Or you might find us growing some food and working for our own sake rather than that of capitalism or communism. Or whatever else. The point is, to say that only raddle anarchists hate democracy is obviously false and disingenuous, coming clearly from your lack of knowledge and experience on the topic.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

Real life anarchists like all my fellow DSA members. We're not sectarian assholes like you guys who think you need to be some kind of caveman to be an anarchist.

1

ziq wrote

why would anyone live in a cave when they can live in a treehouse?

wtf

6

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Batman confirmed for Anprim.

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

He is a rich white guy like all primmies.

0

OdiousOutlaw wrote

You forgot about the part where he uses technology and beats up the mentally ill (thus performing the ableist praxis that all primitivists are known to do).

Before you get the wrong idea, I'm being sarcastic.

If any DC character is anprim, it's Poison Ivy.

4

ziq wrote

swamp thing

5

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Shit, you right.

I'm more of a Marvel guy; everything I know about DC I get from the cartoons, animated movies, and games (all departments in which I will freely admit that Marvel has been lacking in).

4

ziq wrote

I only care about marvel when brubaker is the writer

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

You need to have a talk with my maxed out credit cards and empty bank account

3

polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

Amazing you can use the term caveman in a derogatory way but in the same breath say that primitive is a colonial term and should never ever be used. Also, I don't think you have to be a "caveman" to be an anarchist

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Real life anarchists like all my fellow DSA members

Gotcha! I knew it's someone's parody account!

3

confusedarchist OP wrote

I agree that there's no substantial difference between us. I think it's elitist when certain anarchists say they're better than other socialists.

0

ziq wrote

Anarchists are better than socialists.

4

confusedarchist OP wrote

I agree with you and I strongly believe in left unity but a lot of other anarchists hate left unity so much that they won't even unite with anti-state anarchists of other denominations, so they won't even consider uniting with statist anarchists like democratic socialists.

−2

ziq wrote

statist anarchists

are you for real right now?

5

sadie_killer wrote

have you read the things you were linked to? if so, is there anything in them you don't understand or disagree with?

3

confusedarchist OP wrote

I read some of it. I don't understand why it's a bad thing to have good hierarchies and why anarchists would be against free speech when the alternative is to be put in prison for saying things the ruling elites don't agree with.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

What is a "good" hierarchy to you? Reading your other comments, you seem to be confused about what the word hierarchy means and what we use it to mean.

If that issue with terms is solved and explained to you properly, as hopefully it has been, what is your issue with it now, if any? Free speech in the sense of being able to say what you want is perfectly anarchist, but the idea that you can say anything you want to anybody is ridiculous. Don't expect to call someone a slur to their face and get away with it. Getting beat up is far different than going to prison.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

Any hierarchy that benefits us and improves our society.

Beating someone up because you don't agree with their opinions is fascist.

0

polpotisevil2 wrote

What would be an hierarchy that benefits or improves "our society"? I'd like an example. What if someone disagrees that it improves society? Or it affects them negatively?

I can't tell if you simply don't have much experience in the world or if you are purposefully trying to provoke me. Screaming fascism at the slightest disagreement is quite pathetic. I'm trying to explain something to you, and you are calling me fascist for saying that if you call someone a slur to their face you may well get beat up. If you think racism is simply "disagreeing with my opinions" you are likely part of the problem.

5

ziq wrote

You're honestly gonna make an 'antifa is the real fa' argument? Beating up someone who is spreading racist ideas is a valid response because those ideas will inevitably get people killed for not being white. It's community self defence. Racist propaganda can quite literally tear the world apart.

5

sadie_killer wrote (edited )

it's likely that the things you read explained somewhere the reasoning behind the positions they put forward. i know that ziq's essays on the relevant subjects do.
if you are able, i would suggest continuing to read them, and ask more specific questions if you don't understand, or start a good faith discussion on aspects you disagree with.

don't be afraid to admit if you don't feel able to finish (or start) reading anything. alternatives can be suggested, or (if it would help) text-to-speech software can be recommended.
or, in the future, asking questions on a subject without starting by soliciting a defense of arguments without providing them (or having read them) would make it easier to help you :)

edit: this comment was edited several times, i'm bad at leaving such things alone, i apologise if that causes any issues in a more fast moving thread than i'm used to.

4

confusedarchist OP wrote

The other thing that attracts me to statist communism is that it's a completely scientific theory.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

1

mofongo wrote

Have you read the book? Marx never called communism a science, that's just the title and it refers that his theories are the new cool thing in town completely unrelated to those that came before him.

The confusion is understandable (and likely deliberate) but that's the thing.

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

Aren't his theories inspired by Proudhon's? Especially his book What Is Property?

1

mofongo wrote

Marx was initially inspired by Proudhon, but he grew to detest him and his theories, he disavowed his younger self for thinking Proudhon as deep. Marx considered Proudhon a bad economist, a bad philosopher, whose critiques never went beyond the boundaries of philosophy and economy, and spent a lot of time responding to many of Proudhon's books and thesis.

7

not_Bezotcovschina wrote

Here you can find the definition of the term "scientific theory". Please, read it and stop calling Marxism "scientific theory".

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

You can certainly test communism in this manner and prove it works, so I don't really see your point.

1

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

No, it's not possible to scientifically test Marxism and prove it "works", because it have no clearly stated falsifiable or testable predictions of what "works" means.

6

polpotisevil2 wrote

Exactly how is communism "an aspect of the natural world"? Hate to break it to you, economic/political theory is what communism actually is. And economic/political theory is a joke

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

In nature all lifeforms work together in unison as a necessity to co existence.

0

polpotisevil2 wrote

People work together outside of communism all the time. In capitalism too, like it or not.

We may as well call everything on earth "an aspect of the natural world" if this is the case. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand so that the word natural keeps its meaning. Anything man-made is not natural, this includes all sorts of political and economic theories, the sci-fi books people write, the computers we use, etc.

6

ziq wrote

guess you've never met a tiger. not big fans of working with bunnies and deer to do communism

3