Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

13

DissidentRage wrote

FULL POSADIST tankarchist Non-sectarian libertarian socialist. I don't really have a fully-developed opinion yet on the best method to bring about communism, but I do think whatever happens can only end well when it's initiated from the bottom up - in the end, only the proletariat can free itself. At the core of my beliefs, I want to see the destruction of capital, I want to see that the needs of everyone are met, and I want to see that everyone is treated with respect - as long as their agenda does not make them an enemy to life, as with fascists.

8

amongstclouds wrote

Queer Erisian Zenarcho-Egoist -- You can just call me a snowflake. It seems to be the easiest to remember for most people.

I think the emphasis on equality is kind of spooky, and the real path to true 'equality' is through self-actualization. We need to abolish work, war, classism, racism, fascism, and all that trash in order to create a more open and even society where people have the time and resources to become their most authentic self.

3

SpiderGrinder wrote (edited )

Sounds like an interesting combo.

Recently started reading The Unique and its Property and will read through the works posted in both f/Egoism and f/Zenarchism. Can you recommend me some other readings not mentioned/posted in those forums, related to your description?

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I've been meaning to work on a sidebar for f/zenarchism and I've also finish writing some things on these topics. Maybe I'll stop procrastinating.

But here are a few things that have heavily influenced me: Gender Nihilism;Toward the Queerest Insurrection;The Society of the Spectacle;The Zennist;BuddhaNet;Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs;Desert.

3

SpiderGrinder wrote

Thank you, will check those out :)

2

amongstclouds wrote

No problem, I'm certainly going to try and get back into writing. I see big interrelations between Anarchism, Egoism, Intersectionality, Zen, Discordianism, and Deep Ecology.

2

MaxStirner wrote (edited )

Egoist here too. Society is also spooky, and Zen has many spooky things about it. I like parts of Zen and Taoism but I don't think I'd ever call call myself either. Too much religious baggage. Buddhism too and the ideology of no-self, it reminds me of where Stirner talks about the "self" not being static and how we change moment to moment.

As for the Erisian aspect, Discordianism is cool with me as a mocking satirical religion. It's the original Pastafarianism, just not as stupid. :)

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

What parts of Zen do you find to be spooky? I'm only asking because of the countless misconceptions about Zen. These misconceptions come from both the 'Westernization' of Zen as well as the view that Zen is Buddhism. If you want to see some spooky things you should check out Tibetan Buddhism. There are still things to learn from it... but sheesh! :p

2

MaxStirner wrote

Well, you linked to the Zennist and the newest post I seen on there was this.

http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2017/11/does-buddhism-deny-a-transmigrant.html

This is the religious baggage I'm talking about. I do like many things about Zen and Taoism though.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I probably should have expanded on some of them. The Zennist is one of my favorite blogs on Zen -- but it's something kind of different -- an interpretation of the dharma.

The same writer also produced the ideas of Dark Zen and they are considered kind of controversial, at least on internet forums. The controversy is only concerning the fact that the writer is not actually ordained in any type of way. I don't see this as a problem. I see it a creative rebellion against the idea that Zen has to be something officially defined.

Zen leaves room for numerous ideas and many different interpretations. Many of the ideas from the Zennist are interesting, but most importantly creative and willing to take a different stance.

With that said, Dark Zen is really nothing too different, it's just nothing special. But what is special?

I'll admit a lot of Buddhism, in general, is kind of airy for me (mostly from the Theravada branch) -- but the Mayahana tradition asks you do not believe anything anyone claims as absolute Truth™ because only each Unique can truly see itself for what it is -- there are no barriers from reality, just distractions.

It's all just one giant game, after all. If you're interested you should read the three sermons attributed to 'Bodhidharma', the first monk to brink Chan (which later becomes known as Zen in Japan) Buddhism to China.

1

amongstclouds wrote

"The people I meet nowadays are superficial. They think of merit as something that has form. They squander their wealth and butcher creatures of land and sea. They foolishly concern themselves with erecting statues and stupas, telling people to pile up lumber and bricks, to paint this blue and that green. They strain body and mind, injure themselves and mislead others. And they don’t know enough to be ashamed. How will they ever become enlightened?

They see something tangible and instantly become attached. If you talk to them about formlessness, they sit there dumb and confused. Greedy for the small mercies of this world, they remain blind to the great suffering to come. Such disciples wear themselves out in vain. Turning from the true to the false, they talk about nothing but future blessings."

8

zorblax wrote

anarchist, although I'd settle for a very out-of-the-way state I think.

I mostly just want there to be less bullshit in our lives so we can all become the wonderfully weird beings we were meant to be.

1

Nikki wrote

I have to agree. As much as I would love to see a truly anarchistic society, nationalism in many countries, especially here in the states has an incredible influence on the lives of people living here. There aren't too many people who would willingly give up their national identity.

7

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Anarchist; with focuses on what could roughly be called decolonial, intersectional, and nonnormative approaches

6

GrimWillow wrote

I usually shade myself green/black because I think ultimately our habitat is the biggest thing at stake (for humans and many non-humans) from the deathly circus of labor-for-the-poor and blessings-for-the-rich being built, but sometimes I identify just with simple black because it's not really different. I will of course reach out in intersectional solidarity with many forms of Anarchism that do not involve any sort of state to facillitate the organizing in any stage.

I think context should be important to anyone who considers themselves to be an Anarchist, and the fight for decolonization is an extremely important one. It's that same colonial force that is attempting to foster fascism to face us and try to make neo-liberal capitalism pallatable for enough liberals that they don't care about/notice all the violence/slavery it entails.

Also important to any Anarchist is to fight oppressions related to our existence, so that means patriarchy, white supremecy, capitalism, fascism, monarchies, and state socialism. We don't live in a vacuum so as soon as you realize the communities that are under attack, you're pretty much at the barricades with your comrades and it's right where you stand.

7

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I'm about the same. This lifestyle not only is warping and destroying humans, it's warping and destroying the environment, and no matter how much we try to pretend we are the most specialest creatures ever and can exist apart from the natural world, we can't.

So I do shade myself as green, but also anti-civ, though I'm not really sure I like the title "anti-civ." It depends on how you define civilization and like everything else, the definition has long been tied up in Racist BS. If we're talking about the Industrial One-Size-Fits-All civilization, then I am opposed to it. It's destroying the world and it goes against the natural instincts wired into each and everyone of us.

The "But Human Nature!" meme stubbornly refuses to die, operating under the belief that without a massive elaborate societal hierarchy, we'd soon be killing and pillaging each other, but it doesn't hold up.

As said before, what usually happens in the aftermath of disasters is that people band together and do what they can to help each other out. There are a couple of bad seeds who take advantage of the chaos to pillage, but the vast majority do not. Humans are naturally wired for altruism; we want to look after and take care of each other.

Civilization as we know it, with all the hierarchies and divisions between the standards of livings, didn't really come about until about ten thousand years ago. Thing is, the species, Homo sapiens, have been around for fifty thousand years. If humans were so inherently violent and awful that we couldn't function without a massive State, how did we manage to live and survive for some forty thousand years without one?

So I'm totally a fan of the tribal-band style of living. It's the oldest form of living among humans and there's a reason it endures; we are wired for it. If a collapse or whatever happens, what will result is likely many different tribes, with lots of different ways of life depending on the area where they live. Nature prizes diversity; the only way we've kept the One-Size-Fits-All standard going, is via massive infusions of nonrenewable resources.

2

GrimWillow wrote

Humans are naturally wired for altruism; we want to look after and take care of each other.

I agree with this because you can see it even in the nazi propaganda about "securing a future" and shit, and all these politicians talkin big game on helping people. It's why all these right wing groups focus on their victimhood for appeal. They know people will see it, and it will tug a little string in their biggoted heart, as they lay watch to their "bro's" suffering.

It has always been about mutal aid for surival, it's too bad horrible renditions of the apolypse in popular culture invoke an ayn-caps dream/nightmare instead of anything realistic. People are being so far removed to how culture is without industrialism and global neo-liberal capitalist tyranny that they're losing themselves in the world of media propagated by other slaves to the corporations, who are also removed from personal relationships with the earth and the community it requires.

4

wieke wrote

Anarchist, anarcho-transhumanist when I feel like being fancy, with environmentalist tendencies. I haven't actually gotten around to reading some anarcho-transhumanists texts, it's just that I already was a transhumanist before becoming an anarchist and I do feel like the ideologies are connected for me.

4

selver wrote

anarchist without adjectives, or post-left.

4

no_fun_allowed wrote

Ancom or communalist. Still deciding but I want to see cooperative stateless societies that aren't places you'd see in a Mad Max movie.

3

MaxStirner wrote

Egoist. Neither left nor right. Although the left is more friendly to egoism than the right seems to be, which is part of the reason I'm at Raddle.

2

turniphead wrote

so... you're a centrist?

1

MaxStirner wrote

Nah I wouldn't say that. I have some ideas that would be seen as leftist, such as being anti-state, while at the same time, I don't necessarily believe in the concept of equality, which could be more of a right wing idea.

I'm not necessarily against equality as an idea, but I think it's a made up concept that humans created to work towards, kind of like "rights" and money.

2

Somewhat_marxist_leninist wrote

Marxist-Leninist but I don't believe in violent revolution against the bourgeoisie in this time and age. I believe in fighting sexism, racism, white supremacy and over everything else: fascism.

2

anyan25 wrote

anarchist/syndicalist/ecoanarchist/queeranarchist/veganarchist

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

I've identified as an anarcho transhumanist for a really really long time, but recently have been exploring nihilist anarchism and post leftist stuff and so I'm kinda in a transitional phase right now.

2

succtales_backup wrote

Something my friend dubbbed “hyperanarchy”. It is a fully automated web of production overseen by an Athenian style direct democracy of a mentally enhanced populous with equal distribution of base recourses. Though with heavy personalization through cuts of resources, obtained through the web of mechanisms and limited bartering.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

You mean sortition? Where only citizenship-holding older men could hold office or vote on policy?

2

Hal wrote

Neo-Luddite communist, maybe a bit on the authoritarian side. People seem to call me an anprim a lot but I'm neither anarchist nor primitivist, so don't accuse me of that.

1

MoeShinola1 wrote

Left-leaning Libertarian. Minarchist, I guess.

1

Hal wrote

Do left libertarians use the term minarchist too? I thought that was only a right libertarian thing.

1

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

I just wish for humanity to touch the stars, and be somewhere else when the Sun implodes. Preferrably with transparent, libre technology.