Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Via Aragorn Eloff:

I've just started reading Eric Laursen's new book, The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State, and I'm struck by the clear, commonsense way in which he explains the complete structural inability of the State to meet the needs and desires of people.
In the podcast below, he provides perhaps the most obvious example of this: the pathetic failure of states everywhere to even begin to guarantee the future of life on Earth in the face of ecological crisis. If states cannot even do this, surely it represents an utter failure to meet even the most rudimentary aspects of their self-declared social mandate? Surely we then need to urgently begin to consider non-State alternatives for achieving our individual and collective ends?
I can highly recommend the podcast and the book for anyone looking for an accessible entrypoint into contemporary critiques of the State.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

: the pathetic failure of anarchists everywhere to even begin to guarantee the future of life on Earth in the face of ecological crisis. If anarchists cannot even do this, surely it represents an utter failure to meet even the most rudimentary aspects of their self-declared social mandate? Surely we then need to urgently begin to consider State-based alternatives for achieving our individual and collective ends?

just for fun

4

aaaaargZombies wrote

quote from the book, the podcast or elsewhere?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

I was just playing with the original actual quote

I think it's a weak argument for anarchy, because it's too easy to flip around and be basically as convincing. It just depends what you think is hegemonic-- whether you focus on the state's control of material resources and work, or on the non-profit and "social movement" world's frequent appeals to anarchist aesthetics and imagery and discourse. it's a funny joke to me because, hegemonic (not Raddle) anarchist logic (idealism and abstract forms > materialism) would actually lead you to conclude the second quote, not the original, because the state's control over material resources and work shouldn't matter if it's just all about cultural and social signification/forms.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

In general, I find these "intro to anarchy" texts to be little more than anarchist-palatable entryism. They are full of weird pseudo-philosophy, rhetorical fallacies, and ARR type.

3

aaaaargZombies wrote (edited )

whooosh haha

I did that thing where I only read the comments I've not read before but had clearly forgotten what I'd read...

It's a fair point any way.

4