You must log in or register to comment.

Majrelende wrote (edited )

When I was young I fantasised about founding a state that would be free from all oppression, but very soon I found that it therefore wouldn't be a state, and that was how I came to anarchy.

I also rather like how Marx and Engels tried a "scientific" indicative approach to social change rather than an imperative one, which is the direction most Marxists as well as anarchists--most people--have taken. The idea that lasting change can be made simply by human effort, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, may be better abandoned.

However I have disagreements with them, and think an industrialised (even decentralised) authoritarian communism would rapidly collapse back into capitalism due to certain people, especially those in control of distribution, having naturally more power and gaining from greed. I also think that there will never be a time when technology is far enough progressed to create the conditions for a revolution, because technology is inherently power-concentrating, and the conditions for civilisation's spread have been perfect for the last few thousand years, regardless of the social conditions. But something like a revolution has a possibility of occurring on small scales in the midst of the collapse of civilisation.


ChaosAnarchy wrote

A heard of a few like MMT and basic income but honestly I just find them boring and they imply to somehow upkeep the old system that is right now, just a bit fairer. My country already has social welfare and even with 20% more money life would probably be nearly just as depressive. I don't want to live in a world anymore where others decide over others and on top of that they even have much more wealth.


fortmis wrote (edited )

In general I bristle at any political theory that is detached from life on the ground / in the streets / on the assembly line / etc. I have a hard time listening to people talk about political theory that's all head and no heart, all textbook, nothing tangible. So, I have definitely engaged with non-anarchist political theory where it's been part of the foundation of certain types of direct action... if that makes any sense. Because what I find useful is when people actually do shit lol


tuesday wrote

I guess a lot of prison abolition and community restoration theory that I read isn't explicitly anarchist. The prison abolition theory stuff I've read isn't always necessarily anti-state though it tends to be anti-capitalist. I come across a lot of state communists in that for sure. Community restoration stuff tends to be more both anti-state and anti-capitalist, but not explicitly anarchist in name at least.

The things that I tend to find useful are ways that I can reframe and explain things that seemed obvious to me but maybe aren't necessarily obvious to people with different frames of reference. So maybe I have the same conclusions as the author but they came to it differently than I would have. Having that new frame of reference and understanding of their experience is useful. A lot of prison abolition theory and community restoration theory is about meeting people where they are and bringing them into these communities of care through guided conversations and questions that get them to engage with subjects they wouldn't normally consider. And part of that is getting to understand their frames of reference and how their experiences have shaped their thoughts.

My brain is a sieve so things that I'm not using wash away pretty quickly. So I can't think of anything that I've read that I considered harmful, because I wouldn't have held onto that much longer than it took me to get over being upset about it.


moonlune wrote (edited )

Almost none. I don't engage with much political theory as a whole compared to some people around here, and thus prefer to be efficient and read what I like and what I could use later.