Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote

That it is possible to scale healthy social behaviors to the neighborhood level without coercion

That the various technologies we have might be able to function eventually by repair rather than continual extraction.

undoubtedly other foolish beliefs

13

moonlune wrote

  • People are able to know what's best for themselves.

  • Anarchy can be taught.

9

ziq wrote

Anarchy can be taught

I got a lot of flack for suggesting it can't be a while back

6

moonlune wrote (edited )

that's not surprising, without that postulate, the red anarchist dream of an unified anarchist world falls apart.

Thing is, you're probably right. Throughout history we've always had groups of people doing anarchy(ish) without being taught it. And I feel like it's in my nature to be how I am. Maybe there's an An- / archist gene lol

It's probably a mix of nature/nuture, as with everything lol

6

ziq wrote (edited )

it's in my nature

You should have seen the tidalstorm of fury I provoked when I used the dreaded n word in the same way as you just used it.

https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/120968/i-honestly-don-t-think-anarchy-is-something-you-can-be

3

kin wrote

I can agree with both ideas, I don't find them to be mutually exclusive. I tend to incline more on the "anarchy nature" side because it is my personal experience. Now, with this post, I am questioning my whole Anarchy, and i I put too much weight in my personal ideology and if it "bleeds" through all the other aspects, but then thinking better this is the whole point, this is what I find to be the way I can best live, to put in a simpler way.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Now, with this post, I am questioning my whole Anarchy

the way my brain is constantly working overtime to analyze literally every thought that enters my head, or any interaction I have with any form of life, i'm not really capable of questioning my anarchy because every single moment of my existence is about questioning my existence. my anarchy is a permanent analysis of every fibre of every being. since everything i do or say is deeply entrenched in questioning, all i could really do is question my need to question everything, but then i'd need to cease to exist to stop because it's the entirety of my make up

4

subrosa wrote

That an anarchism is possible, and anarchy desirable? I don't know, I've lost my 'fundament' too many times to know what it is now.

7

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I dunno, by the time I worked through them all, I ended up a nihilist.

Can't form an opinion about how efficient economics/group dynamics/industrialization are if you've already abandoned the notion that efficiency is desirable.

Can't care about humans as a group if you mock the idea of a unified human nature and consider the concept of "humanity" a man-made abstraction.

Actually, I guess I'm still coping with the fact that people will do what makes the least sense and will continue following empty ideas as I scream into the void that none of it is real. The idea of "logic" and "not falling into self-delusion" still has a grip on me, despite my disdain for the former.

7

ziq wrote

embracing nihilism is really the answer to any logical introspection

4

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I can't say I agree.

The lack of belief in anything requires you to abide by a form of logic/reasoning, which is an abstraction based on human pattern recognition.

But if you abandon logic/reasoning entirely, then nihilism loses its foundation.

There's no answer either way; you either cope with this contradiction or you start back at square one.

Of course, I'm making a presupposition on nihilism; it's really easy to do given how there's more than one type and aren't mutually inclusive.

3

kin wrote

Like nihilism is an active stance of negation? Active in the sense that you need a framework, a system do deny. Like there isn't an "a priori" Nihilism?

Sorry to chime in, but this thought is very interesting

4

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Like nihilism is an active stance of negation? Active in the sense that you need a framework, a system do deny.

More or less. Since I expect everything to "make sense" at an almost instinctual level, my conflict with my own nihilism is that it directly contradicts itself with my insistence that man-made abstractions are artificial and have no basis in reality. Which culminates in me ultimately being aware that I'm still trying to appeal to "logic", "objectivity", and "truth"; which directly contradict the egoist aversion of being ruled by abstractions and the nihilistic conception of these things having any value.

Like there isn't an "a priori" Nihilism?

I doubt there is; "meaning" needs context/experience to discern and I'm one of those weirdos who believes that the existence of a deity doesn't make anything "objectively" meaningful. Or valuable. Or good/evil. So the theist's answer doesn't solve that problem.

3

existential1 OP wrote

I think mine is that i can simultaneously exist as nothing and something. That there's a coherent liminal space between the two that I, and others, can acknowledge and maintain.

5

Ennui wrote

Go on...

4

existential1 OP wrote

Well I tend to negate identification with or as much of anything, which leads to nothingness. But there are times where due to desire to continue living or external pressures I have to be something to someone. I have to believe that its possible for me to simultaneously be nothing and something, and that its possible for others to do the same.

3

Ennui wrote

Honestly I can’t think of any. I can tell you what I do have, though: confirmation bias. I’ve pretty much convinced myself that anarchism is relevant and an option in any philosophical setting and given any interpretation of the nature of life, which is the only way I can call myself an anarchist despite lacking concrete opinions on most subjects.

This is also how I ignorantly shovel centuries of liberal philosophy (required by my university studies) down my throat with minor indigestion.

5

moonlune wrote (edited )

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions.

David Graeber

4

Ennui wrote

I would be reluctant to base anarchism on conditions of human decency. And while I think the conclusion of 'power corrupts' is the same in either case, I would be more inclined to say that power neglects.

3

cammie wrote

I don't like that take.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how.

Maybe I don't have the very simplest anarchist beliefs, but plenty of people are "unreasonable" under the best of circumstances. The reason I want more anarchy is because of these unreasonable people not despite them. If they're unreasonable under ordinary circumstances who'd want them having any power?

But i'm also not sure that people can always organise themselves and their communities when left to their own devices, I just think having people in power makes any attempts at organising harder. You're more likely to fail to get organised* when there are people out there whose position of power is dependent on them doing the organising instead of you.

*(insofar as that's really a desirable thing anyway, depends on your idea of 'organised', but much of the time it seems to mean "organized and able to continue life as it were, with plenty of factory jobs for the proles")

The second is that power corrupts.

Yeah ok whatever, that's fine, if a bit vague. I think power is bad regardless of what it does to those in power.

Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions.

Who's "we"?! People live by vastly different and irreconcilable notions of common decency. Isn't indecency one of the top five favourite reasons used to justify genocide?


If we're doing bad takes then mine is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and anarchy is good for this goose :)

2

moonlune wrote

human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be,

I feel like he was saying it more in the sense that most people wouldn't act like in the purge but cooperate and work together in the absence of rules.

Later on he uses the act of queuing, and joining a queue from the end, as an example of spontaneous "ruleless" organisation.

The text itself is an introductory piece and very short btw, probably not meant to be discected by philosophers.

2

kin wrote

This question poses me another: how much of my belief in anarchism is present or define my daily life? (and as I said in one of my early interactions here I'm not comfortable with this label "anarchist", I could be something else entirely, a very unique and personal ideology or whatever, but still, anarchism is an affinity).

My "allegiance" to anarchist beliefs derives to the simple notion that I am a fully grown sentient being that need liberty/freedom, to resume "Freedom is not enough. What I desire has no name yet.", this quote is something that I want to achieve, somehow a post-anarchy where Anarchism core is given and already clear and accepted. This don't mean that besides this simple core I can't hold other interests or beliefs, but his pretty much guide everything else, and the thought of living otherwise is what makes me feel sad.

I am not responding to your main question maybe because I maybe need more thought on it, I have lots of small fragments that I put together and improve on them, a great influence in poetics and mysticism too, just to be more outcast. But I got the last part "things you have that create the necessity of your opinions about anarchism"

4

ziq wrote

if I understand the question correctly, I guess the assumption that I want trans people to die because I acknowledge the existence of collapse

https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/nr91ki/a_mods_introduction_to_why_we_dont_want/h0gcmj0/

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

No, the question was asking you to interrogate your own anarchism and its presuppositions, not complain about narcissistic trans people on reddit.

That person was annoying, however

6

ziq wrote

but if my own anarchism had flaws, and I was aware of them, why would I continue to hold them?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Because you aren't a perfect person with all the answers, and you're aware of the limitations of your analysis?

I'm not asking you to subject yourself to a struggle session with you and all your least favorite friends, but you might learn something from the idea of self-criticism, which this question is asking for. It's how you improve your analysis as a communist, as opposed to the competitive means of analysis improvement which is characteristic of bourgeois values and normalized throughout its capitalist society.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

honestly my analysis has always considered every possible permutation. there are no holes i haven't already filled. not trying to be an asshole but my mind is constantly analyzing every potential outcome of every potential action 24/7

−3

zoom_zip wrote

i’m gonna be honest, i’ve been looking at this question for a minute, and i don’t think i understand what is being asked

3

moonlune wrote (edited )

the question is: what are unprovable postulates of your belief.

For example, fascist believe that some people are inherently superior to others and some group's life is worth more than others.

4

existential1 OP wrote

What unprovable assumptions do you hold that are the basis by which you "identify" or "believe" or "subscribe" to/in anarchist ideas and principles?

The question is based on the idea that all systems, including our personal beliefs, are based on unprovable notions that must be taken on faith.

3

zoom_zip wrote

everything... then

isn’t everything just internalised thoughts. every time i’ve held a thought it is like a prince rupert’s drop. you can hit it with a hammer and it won’t break, but it always has a weak point—some thing that exists outside of the awareness—and if you exert pressure right there, the whole thing shatters.

that’s not a bad thing. it’s just, thoughts are rock solid until they’re not.

everything i believe is only for me. for every belief i hold, there is someone (many people) who hold the opposite belief. we can’t all be right, but we can all be wrong.

3

Majrelende wrote (edited )

That allowing the free continuation of life is better than destroying the world and plunging countless beings into suffering to give luxury to a small percent of humans.

Aside from that, I feel that my anarchism has ceased to be a logic and has become more of an instinct, and is expansive in ways that cannot be explained. This may have been a cause of my long period of inactivity on Raddle.

3

throwaway wrote (edited )

That people are shaped by culture. Humans were not always this way, and unlearning is possible.

Then there's the hope that enough people care.

2