Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

Ant wrote (edited )

If we do have an overarching goal for raddle specifically, I would say that it is to provide an alternate place relatively removed from capital for people to conspire and to exchange ideas, plans, and means together

contributing to the space is trying to effectively communicate our ideas and trying to effectively understand others so that we can become better together

promoting a thriving and welcoming space of meaningful debate and and a diversity of opinion within the overall limits (i.e. ToS rules) seems to me ideal

3

sudo wrote

I'm pretty sure the goals that anarchists and communists have in common are the overthrow of capitalism, and the creation of a stateless, moneyless society where workers own their own means of production. We just have different ideas for how to achieve those goals.

2

amongstclouds wrote

It might also help to divide the communists between the libertarian and authoritarian branches, because both of those have different goals for how to achieve this world as well as the end-game itself.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

When we talk about the goals of raddle, that can be laid out pretty easily, but i don't think that's what you're getting at.

It's the assumption of consensus, like when someone says 'we' or us' when they're only talking about themselves and their own specific goals or dreams. The goals of revolution and communism are pretty vague and abstract, and mean different things to different people. These are not really goals in the sense of something that can be concretely worked toward, it's more like a shared desire that no one really knows how to make a reality. "The Left" or whatever imaginary collective you identify with doesn't have singular definitions of these things.

Among anarchists there's a number of strategic orientations--platformism, syndicalism, insurrectionalism--but then we don't really know how this specific tactic will lead to revolt or even how revolt transpires into revolution, and since no revolution has ever actually achieved communism or whatever you call it, it's really just a leap of faith to assume that revolution can possibly achieve communism.

Then just compare the goals of Leninists to those of anarchists, in both short term and long term they have nothing in common other than aesthetic similarities.

But when you talk about anticiv ziq i honestly don't know what you mean. I've always considered myself a very green anarchist(sic) and have occasionally used the term anti-civ to describe my desire to built a critique of civlilization as such and to move humanity beyond civlilization. But even though i've read plenty of primitivism and agree with many of their critiques, the positive aspect of their doctrine: the apocalyptic catharsis of collapse and the return to animality is completely ridiculous.

So there is yet another division even within one tendency.

What I'm trying to get at is that if we ever want to achieve our goals (as desiring individualists who understand our self interests are interwoven with the fate of humanity and Life in general) we have to have a wider view of strategy than our particular ideology. We have to think of revolution terms of millions of people, many blocs and coalitions with radically different goals and worldviews, acting simultaneously without any central coodination.

How can such a radically heterogeneous, complex and contradictory movement, coalesce into something that benefits everyone?

2

kore wrote

I like to think that a lot of our general/abstract goals coincide. Things like eliminating oppression and promoting mutual aid. How that manifests itself into our practice is very different for different people. We're also an international community, and the issues faced in different countries, while perhaps similar, don't quite coincide.

1

ziq wrote

I know my goals, for instance, would send most people here into an outraged panic.

2

ziq wrote

...which is making me want to refer to my goals as "our goals" from now. Our goals ftw!