Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

For me, the list is endless, so I'll just say a few.

  • A personal preference of mine has always been for people to assume that they are wrong as a matter of praxis, to assume that parts of what they value already are bound up in exploitative frameworks, and then be willing to crush their beliefs and their oppressive self-identifications the moment that they are faced with a good argument.
    Instead, people often don't let themselves really touch on unpleasant thoughts, and sooner get their backs up when someone critiques their arguments because they've built up an identity around their beliefs and so they take it personally. (this is not to say that people needn't make arguments in a careful and empathetic way)

  • I want people to see all things as interconnected in a more meaningful way. (in other terms we might say that I want a deep and pervasive multidimensional intersectionality). Non-racist posthumanist philosophy, understanding humans and deeply enmeshed in relations between their selves and other humans and nonhuman life, seems really important. You care about the environment? Environmental degradation is bound up in capitalism and in racism and in patriarchy and and and. You care about patriarchy? It's bound up in all of these things. Anarchists have to do it all, immediately, I think, or they're fooling themselves.

  • Based on various ways I've seen people engage, Raddle doesn't care enough about race. Raddle doesn't care enough about race.

  • Lots of leftists/anarchists tend to have really shallow and strawman critiques of smaller radical currents, and end up sounding like liberals who say "but somebody has to be in charge! there has always been hierarchy!"

  • I think that anarchists need to be more careful about how they talk about and envision violence. It's very easy to see creeping authoritarianism and ressentiment in the way that a lot of people talk about violence. It's those things that creep in, those hidden tendencies of a movement, that seem to me among the most dangerous elements of its internal well-being.

This is getting pretty long so I'll leave it here for now.

Edit: Critique and thoughts are more than welcome!


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

what are the radical currents that anarchists strawman against?

I really agree with you about intersectionality. I've got a friend that's a really woke feminist and environmentalist but doesnt believe in "convergence des luttes" (as we call it in france), and that's frustrating.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

Ummmm, there are a handful (possibly anything that isn't anarcho-communism), here's an example.

  • Left anarchists who discredit post-leftists as 'lifestylists,' totally disengaging, and assuming they just know better because they're onto that 'actual/proper' anarchism. I know a bunch of platformist anarchists who treat any anarchist who isn't platformist like infectious proto-fascist unicorns. This kind of sectarianism - based in a willed disengagement and misunderstanding of others - I find totally ridiculous. That non-seeing and enclosure is (I think) of the same kind involved in racism, so I'm extra wary of those people. (I think it's also the kind of enclosing that makes "anarcho"capitalists think the garbage they think in relation to anarchists)