Basically the conversation started with SnowCode making the apt observation that
There's quite a shit ton of people insulting other anarchists of "lifestylist" for not being efficient and productive enough for anarchism.
and my contrarian bone decided to find a point of relatability with the critique of "lifestylists" (although their initial comment I totally agree with)
I started to reflect on all the situations both micro and macro where I observe people dismantling negative (i.e. hierarchical / oppressive) elements of their life and relationships and failing to carry the process further into what I believe is the necessary followup -- creating new behaviours, patterns, ways of relating to people.
I tried to express this thought here
People do away with whatever they perceive as toxic / oppressive / capitalistic in nature about their lives, but don't replace it with an alternative -- their M.O., or identity becomes completely antithetic. There is no growth, only the illusion of growth through a constant stream of rejecting things.
I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not expressing myself well, still it is something that I am passionate about, so I find the conversation/debate to be really helpful. It's also possible that we're arguing slightly different things.
In an attempt to clarify my point, let me try a slightly different wording. I am sometimes frustrated (depending on my intimacy with the situation / person in question) by the idea of a lack of something being synonymous with a complete action. I think you can see this on a large scale -- to be slightly crass about it, look at the French Revolution. You can guillotine the royal family but unless you are able to develop and foster a healthy alternative (I would say ANARCHY being a viable option lol), you'll just end up with a Napoleon... or even without a metaphorical Napoleon, you'll end up with no royal family, but no positive alternative either. Just "lack" -- a vacuum, absence of royalty as supposed to presence of freedom, collaboration, community.
I think that dismantling oppressive systems must be paired with creating something better for yourself and for the people in your life, in order for the process of freeing yourself to be truly realized.
To go back to SnowCode's point about lifestylist anarchists being criticized for not being efficient enough for the anarchist movement... Yes, this is bullshit, and people should not be judged by their efficiency in the movement, as if anarchism is some regiment of foot soldiers -- where the weakest links must be eliminated for the war to be won. However, and honestly maybe there is a simply a discrepancy in how I imagine lifestyliststs (idk... I'm picturing people who wear fuck the government shirts and have all the right tattoos? who don't really care about engaging with anarchism in a communal sense?? maybe I'm just so off) -- I do believe that creative thinking and rethinking and growth is vital in any situation where anarchy is the goal.
And here is also /u/roanoke9 's comment from the initial thread:
]]>Can you give an example interpersonally, of an absence of something? I agree with snowcode I think, because I don't see how your point is anything but wordplay. An absence of a rock on my front steps is different than the presence of a rock on my steps. But the absence of hierarchy in a relationship? That would be the presence of anarchy in a relationship, end of story imo. Now, claiming there is an absence of hierarchy or presence of anarchy in a relationship (saying we're not monogamous but not doing it, that might be flirting with the idea of anarchy in relationships, which is a seperate issue from this presence/absence dichotomy.
Or this is just misunderstanding- because unless the work is put in to develop better communication rather than defaulting to normative role filling, then hierarchy is not reduced or removed.
I should start by giving a sort of disclaimer that I am not trying to come across as judgemental of all folks who are big/large/fat/whatever. I do not see it as a personal moral failure to have an above average body weight and I mean no harm against those who fit that description. I am vehemently against fatphobia and I have seen how bad that form of bigotry can get in some online spaces. I am merely interested to see what other raddler's think about this movement. I don't know if it's worth stating but I am an "average" body weight and my partner would be considered above average.
This post was prompted by my listening to the Fat Liberation episode of the Final Straw Radio podcast. Some of the thoughts in the post are specific to what was said in the podcast and others are more general remarks. Either way I would like to know what others think about what was said as well as my response. Although I am against fatphobia and bodyshaming, my response to the podcast was fairly negative due to some of the comments made. I understand these comments may not reflect the fat liberation movement as a whole.
The first comments that I took issue with were ones about the link between body weight/body fat% and health. I understand that these links can be overemphasized, and I agree that it's possible for someone to be above the average body weight and still be considered healthy. However, I think that this continues a trend I have seen in conversations around fatphobia that seemingly deny any connection between body fat% and physical health. The guest speaker mentioned some scientific data that suggests there is little to no link however I find this hard to accept. It is common knowledge that being extremely overweight, as well as being extremely underweight, are dangerous to our physical health. I think that this apparent denial hurts the overall message of anti-fatphobia.
The speaker commented on people who are critical of the fast food industry and felt that this criticism is somewhat unwarranted. I think this is ridiculous. Is this "anarchist" really arguing that in order to support fat liberation we shouldn't be critical of an industry designed to get us addicted to poor quality, unhealthy food that relies on the exploitation of underpaid workers (often immigrants and minors) as well as the abuse and slaughter of non-human animals? Is this a joke?
The speaker also made some comments regarding exercise culture within anti-fascist/anarchist spaces. I'm sure some of you have seen the memes that go "A fascist worked out today, have you?". I agree somewhat that these ideas can border on toxic but overall I think exercise, physical health, and self defense are important and linking them with politics is not inherently a bad idea. The podcast was already pretty on-the-nose, bordering on self-parody when the speaker drops the line claiming they can still kill fascists from a mobility scooter. Bruh.
This is less to do with fat liberation but it was brought up by the speaker and the hose seemed to agree with them (also ties in with the fast food comments). They made several anti-vegan remarks, claiming that many vegans are vegan for the wrong reason and that animal rights are not worthy of inclusion in their conception of anarchist politics. As someone who wholeheartedly supports animal liberation is just pissed me off. I understand that it has nothing to do with the topic and that one could be vegan and support fat liberation but I just have no idea why that needed to be brought up. Nonvegan anarchists get so sensitive about our ideas.
During and after the podcast I had a lot of thoughts specifically concerning fatness from an anti-civ/primitive perspective. We know that obesity was not widespread among hunter gatherers, and that the rate of obesity is correlated with the wealth of a country. The countries with the highest rates are all pacific islands that have been colonized and had their traditional diets replaced with poor quality Western food (the fast food that the speaker was so concerned about defending). Obesity can be seen as largely a result of civilization and colonialization, and considering the health risks it presents. The speaker in the podcast neglected to address any of this, instead it seems they are more concerned with presenting fatness and obesity as a benign non-issue, no different from disabilities and should be accommodated and treated as such.
It seems to me to be a systemic issue, and one that obviously presents health risks. While it should not be treated as a moral failure or a reason to shame somebody, I think that a lot of the discourse on this topic rejects any sort of discourse that says fatness and obesity are detrimental to physical health, or that a healthy body should be worked towards. I understand there is a lot of layers to this discussion involving eating disorders and mental health but I don't think we should be unconcerned with obesity in the same way we should be concerned about high rates of alcoholism (another health risk that is largely a result of systemic issues often due to civilization and colonization).
If you have read all of this I thank you and hope that you might share your thoughts on these ideas and why I might be wrong. I am hoping that I was able to share my thoughts in an unoffensive way and if I could have worded something better please let me know.
]]>I want to discuss, when it is acceptable to hurt someone's feelings? I suppose, the easiest answer "punch up, not down" applies here. But, the truth is "up" and "down" are very subjective things. It may lead to classical tankie's response "don't criticize China from your imperial core". Could it be extrapolated to "don't draw caricatures to the Prophet from France"?
There, probably no clear answers and guidelines how to always punch "up" without collateral damage to "down", but, anyway, I would appreciate your opinions in comments.
]]>
- Identity Politics
critiquing identity politics insofar as it preserves victimization-enabled identities & social roles (i.e. affirming rather than negating gender, class, etc.) & inflicts guilt-induced paralysis, amongst others
critiquing single-issue campaigns or orientations
and, honestly, I don't understand, what it means. I would like to hear some examples of what fit and what doesn't for both of points.
]]>https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/64232
Powerful people attempting to prevent new players from gaining recognition
]]>Authority=the assertion of a right to control and the ability to back that up with force (either having this ability yourself or the presence of a 3rd party with said ability who uses it on your behalf). Use of force by itself doesn't constitute the presence of an authority, nor does assertion of a right to command on its own. Both the aforementioned criterions must be met in order to say that authority is present.
Authority therefore relies on the viability of power asymmetries.
The reason why human societies lacked authority for the vast majority of our existence as a species is because power asymmetries were non-viable due to paleolithic weapons (which were first invented and used on one another by our Homo Erectus ancestors) functioning as an equalizer: Anyone could learn to make them (they didn't require specialized skill) and their efficacy was for all practical purposes independent of differences in strength and other variations in physical traits (with the obvious exception of things like physical disabilities). This ultimately resulted in a phenomenon called "Balanced Deterrence", which started under Homo Erectus and carried on into our species as well. Balanced Deterrence was similar to the phenomenon of Mutual-Assured Destruction, but applied between individuals and between groups (as opposed to MAD, which is solely between States) and was not associated with an arms race (as opposed to MAD which was responded to with an arms race).
The reason why Balanced Deterrence wasn't associated with an arms race is because an arms race only works when some individuals or groups can command resources in their direction, but this itself requires the presence of authority over resources to be possible (something that was impossible in the context of Balanced Deterrence). In the case of States, they have authority over resources within their territorial domains - because of a power asymmetry between State and citizenry - hence why they can use taxation to command resources in the interests of a stockpiling project. Such a power asymmetry was impossible among our paleolithic ancestors and thus there was no ability to engage in an arms race.
In the absence of an ability to simply dominate one's way out of a balanced deterrence context, our Homo Erectus ancestors began developing a culture of egalitarianism, individual autonomy, reciprocity, mutual-aid, etc... which was bolstered and continued for the vast majority of our prehistory as Homo Sapiens as well. Along the timeline of evolution, this cultural production had enormous impacts on our biology and what came to be our "human nature".
Let's keep track of the essential characteristics of weaponry that creates a context of Balanced Deterrence. These are Conditions A, B, C, D. All must be met.
(A) Easy for anyone to make informally without any specialized knowledge
(B) Easy to wield effectively enough (even if done so sub-optimally due to lack of years of training) without any specialized training
(C) Sufficiently damaging to others even when used sub-optimally, such that the stronger no longer have a power advantage over the weaker
(D) Unable to have an arms race because there is no power asymmetry in the first place that would enable you to command sufficient resources in your direction to stockpile weapons
3d printing of weapons will fulfill all three criteria in the future as it becomes more developed, considering the directions it is going in. Some examples of weapons that can currently be 3d-printed are handguns, RPGs, guided missiles, drones, etc... Additionally, Lockheed Martin is currently working on the use of 3D-printing to produce ICBMs.
With regard to the ammunition and combustion required to make 3d-printed weapons a serious threat, there are developments underway that will allow people to 3d-print the ammo itself as well as print the combustible material itself into the ammunition.
Furthermore, there are now Hybrid printer-mills (can do both 3D-printing and CNC milling with the same machine) which will greatly facilitate the post-print processing. And note that CNC milling is a process that can be fully automated.
What about nukes? Well, it turns out that 3d printing is already being used to create uranium fuel.
AMAFT fuses milling, the traditional way of processing uranium ore (yellowcake), with an additive method INL terms “laser shaping”, to produce a reactive core. In tests, the technique has been used to make pellets of uranium silicide (U3Si2).
This also brings up an important point about the use of lasers. Uranium enrichment itself is becoming easier for non-State actors due to laser enrichment methods which have been newly developed.
Nuclear weapon designs based on uranium fission always benefit from uranium enrichment. Few proliferation concerns arose when the expensive and technically demanding method of gaseous diffusion was the only practical approach to enrichment, as only nation-states with enormous resources were likely to be able to use that process to obtain weapons-grade fuel. Given centrifuge and now laser-based enrichment technologies, this is no longer the case.
Experts are already starting to consider the development of 3d printing as a serious nuclear proliferation concern.
As I have argued in a recent PRIF Report, additive manufacturing may in fact present serious challenges for the nuclear non-proliferation regime sooner than it is currently believed. Should the technology continue to advance as rapidly as it has over the past couple of years, 3D printing could make the (clandestine) pathway to the bomb easier in five ways: Firstly, the technology could significantly increase the indigenous manufacturing capabilities of countries. Certain components and materials needed for a nuclear weapons program, which are difficult to obtain because their export is controlled, could then be manufactured additively. Secondly, the wider diffusion of additive manufacturing processes could have an indirect impact on proliferation, as it increases a proliferator’s autonomy. A decreased dependence on imports of, for example, spare parts for energy or other high-tech sectors reduces the effectiveness of international sanction regimes. This would potentially undermine sanctions and with that a central non-proliferation instrument. Thirdly, 3D printing significantly decreases development cycles and lead times to a degree that, for an indigenous nuclear weapons program, ‘trial and error’ may substitute for a lack of engineering skills and expertise in metal-working, for example, in rolling, milling, or forging. Fourthly, 3D printers, software, and 3D scanning technology could facilitate the easier transfer of know-how and construction plans due to AM’s high proportion of cyber-automation. Finally, additive manufacturing might also decrease the ‘footprint’ of production facilities for nuclear weapon parts, which might make it harder to detect illicit activities.
And their view of potential solutions is not exactly radiating with confidence...
What, then, can be done to balance the huge opportunities of 3D printing with the risks and challenges its further development, adaptation, and diffusion present to nuclear non-proliferation efforts? The lowest hanging fruit is awareness-raising. Export control authorities, customs officers, law enforcement agencies, and IAEA weapons inspectors should be trained and educated to recognize potentially dangerous items or illicit shipments. IAEA weapons inspectors as well as intelligence services will have to adapt to new manufacturing setups for illicit and clandestine activities, but also to new supply chains. Awareness should also be raised in the academic context. Similar to dual-use research of concern (DURC) measures in the (life) sciences, engineering departments at universities and other research institutions operating 3D printers or otherwise engaging in additive manufacturing R&D should have policies in place that minimize the risk of malevolent use of their equipment and know-how. Industry self-regulation and best practices are other low hanging fruits. Some major technology providers refrain from doing business with certain countries or suspicious companies. National and transnational industry associations could pick up on that and adopt sets of best practices on where and when to refrain from exporting printers, software, materials, or know-how. Another set of proposals focuses on strengthening cyber security. The danger that digital build files of critical items could proliferate as a result of cyber espionage or cyber theft must be minimized through more effective protection of critical IT infrastructures, including the 3D printers’ firmware. Compartmentalizing build files, their decentralized storage, and encryption of the data is also mentioned in this regard. Smart contracting technology could be applied as a further safeguard that prevents a stolen file from being printed. Incorporating safeguards against unintended use directly into software, hardware, and even materials is somewhat more complicated and would require creative solutions. Kroenig and Volpe suggest incorporating a single-use mechanism into digital build files which corrupts them after they have completed their task once. With regard to AM hardware, they propose placing unique IDs on metal printers and corresponding markings on every object produced by these printers. This could be helpful for tracking and tracing the whereabouts of high-end printers, possibly by the IAEA. Another measure that could help preventing the use of 3D printing for illicit nuclear weapons activities is export controls. Both Kroenig and Volpe and Christopher propose amending existing export control guidelines with technological parameters of AM machines (e.g., printers’ axes, power of lasers, etc.). As to printing materials, most special metallic powders are already on the EU dual-use control list with the notable exception of maraging steel powder. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) discusses and defines which critical technologies, items, materials and know-how should be placed on dual-use export control lists. It has put additive manufacturing on its agenda – as have other export control regimes. However, it is not easy to find a sustainable approach on controlling additive manufacturing. For one, the genie is already out of the bottle as many countries outside the NSG have indigenous 3D printing industries and technology providers. Moreover, the technology advances at such a rapid pace – with new metal additive manufacturing techniques like Fraunhofer’s 3D screen printing, the University of Sheffield’s diode area melting, Vader System’s MagnetoJet liquid metal printing, or Markforged’s atomic diffusion additive manufacturing being but four examples – that the export control regimes would constantly have to chase such developments and amend the control lists. And finally, there seems to be no real sense of urgency within the export control regimes as there remain doubts regarding the technology’s maturity. Hence, the search for viable means that would minimize the security risks associated with 3D printing without at the same time minimizing its opportunities should continue with a greater sense of urgency. It requires more debate and input from all stakeholders. Above all, authorities, decision makers, industry and academia should place the security policy dimension more firmly on the agenda.
Basically, the most effective (though not very) approaches for trying to prevent this would be export restrictions, closer monitoring of uranium supply chains, and cyber monitoring. And realistically, none of these will be resilient enough to stop proliferation of nukes through 3d printing. Let's look at each one:
Export restrictions: The article admits that "For one, the genie is already out of the bottle as many countries outside the NSG have indigenous 3D printing industries and technology providers. Moreover, the technology advances at such a rapid pace – with new metal additive manufacturing techniques like Fraunhofer’s 3D screen printing, the University of Sheffield’s diode area melting, Vader System’s MagnetoJet liquid metal printing, or Markforged’s atomic diffusion additive manufacturing being but four examples – that the export control regimes would constantly have to chase such developments and amend the control lists". This is basically a fancy way of saying "we'll have to try this and we might be able to do it well for a while, but this stuff will slip through eventually". Generally speaking, the State is quite terrible at perfectly keeping pace with constantly evolving technology. It's regulatory capacity, in the long-run, tends to be reactive rather than proactive and technology always ends up slipping through the cracks or evading the State's eye in some places at some times to sufficiently keep evolving. The State can delay but it cannot prevent entirely the development and dissemination of technology. And this is especially true in the modern era compared to anytime before, given how decentralized modern technology has made the capacity to communicate and coordinate.
Closer Monitoring of Uranium Supply Chains: At first glance, this seems to be a great approach that is sure to work with some due diligence. However, it's been shown that governments are pretty terrible at doing this (and uranium is a rather abundant material found in multiple places all around the world) - see below...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/07/nuclear-material-black-market-georgia
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/10/georgia-nuke-investigations/1757963/
http://time.com/4728293/uranium-underworld-dark-secrets-dirty-bombs/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/plutonium-leaking-on-to-black-market-5428591.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/moldova-nuclear-weapons-isis/409456/
It seems that what has prevented non-State actors from building nukes thus far is not so much the inability to acquire uranium, but the large costs involved in the production of a nuclear weapon. But, as noted above, the production costs will be dramatically lowered to be within the range of non-State actors due to 3d printing plus the use of laser enrichment methods.
What does all this mean for the future? It means that eventually small, informal groups of people will be able to download the requisite software to their hybrid printer-mills and these hybrid printer-mills will produce fully-operational firearms, grenades, RPGs, and (with the use of an AMAFT-like process) Davey Crockett nukes. (It will still be unfeasible for small groups to produce their own Guided Missiles and ICBMs, as these would be easier to detect due to their sheer size.) This satisfies Conditions A, B, C, D that I mentioned above:
The software contains all the instructions and could simply be downloaded into a hybrid printer-mill, and the printer-mill is fully automated (this satisfies condition A).
An inexperienced group can wield them effectively enough to cause significant havoc (this satisfies condition B).
The fact that the state has a far more powerful and more abundant arsenal in its hands makes no difference any longer when small, informal groups of people can produce their own Davey Crockett nukes. Yeah, the State's arsenal is more powerful but it no longer matters at that point because the destructive power of a Davey Crockett nuke is sufficient (you can see for yourself by selecting a preset yield - the second drop down box - for "davey crockett") to create a Balanced Deterrence dynamic between informal groups of people that make their own Davey Crocketts and the State (this satisfies condition C). (It's a similar concept to how even though the US has a lot more nukes than China (8000 vs. 250), China's nuclear arsenal is destructive enough for it to not matter. For all practical purposes they are in a Balanced Deterrence dynamic.)
If informal groups of people are able to produce their own nukes, neither can the State effectively try stockpiling/accumulating weapons nor can any particular informal group effectively try stockpiling/accumulating weapons because they would have no ability to exclusively control resources to be able to undergo that process. This is because other informal groups would contest any such attempt, and there's no way for any one interested group or even multiple of them together to concentrate enough power to have an effective power asymmetry that would allow that kind of consolidation of resources for stockpiling. (this satisfies condition D)
And actually in this context there would be a condition E as well (something new, which our paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors did not have). Condition E is when there is not only Balanced Deterrence between individual vs. individual or group vs. group, but also Balanced Deterrence between individual vs. group. This is crucial, because it is this unique feature that makes it impossible for power asymmetries to ever rise again once they collapse in this context.
So what is the end result? The end result is a collapse of all power asymmetries and an inability to ever recreate power asymmetries. This necessarily means Property and the State will die as well.
Whether this results in catastrophe or liberation depends on how capable the combination of 3d/4d printing and asteroid mining becomes, to enable groups of people to live on large, technologically-modern transport vessels. (Note that I don't necessarily mean to imply that we would have to be space-faring. These could simply be maritime vessels.) I don't think sedentary civilization will be possible anymore once small, informal groups of people can produce their own nukes.
]]>I am curious because I was, despite not knowing the term "Nihilism" at the time. I can remember having Nihilist views as far back as 3rd grade at least. I never felt like there was any intrinsic legitimacy to rules and I would scoff whenever I saw people moralizing a lot. I always saw right and wrong as arbitrary preferences and sometimes got in trouble for being dismissive about rules and morality. People would give me weird looks when I expressed my actual views about rules and morals. So then I stopped being open about it.
As I got older, I sort of manipulated myself into believing in the legitimacy of morals and rules mostly because I found intellectual debates about politics and philosophy interesting (many of which would be completely meaningless without a belief in morality).
In recent years, I've come back to the way I viewed morality as a child - with a Nihilistic perspective. I definitely feel that in accepting my Nihilism, I am more true to myself now than I was before for a while.
Has anyone here had similar experiences?
]]>Political Philosophy: Post-Left Anarchy and influenced heavily by Renzo Novatore.
Metaethics: Amoralism, Moral Error Theory.
Epistemology: Constructivism
Metaphysics: Dialectical Materialism
Other: Existential Nihilism
Do your philosophical perspectives outside of political philosophy influence your political philosophy? And if so, how?
]]>I also notice another problematic trend - the infection-like spread of formalization and the hierarchical education model into earlier and earlier parts of childhood. Driving around, I've noticed various childcare centers that advertise an emphasis on early childhood learning as some kind of effort to "get ahead" of peers academically from the pre-K age onwards. I'm concerned that we are taking away the free time of children at a much earlier age.
I'm certainly not against a form of Childcare, but I can't help but be skeptical and unwilling to support the commodification of Childcare by professionals. I much prefer the alternative of communal parenting, which divides up the labor of raising a child among the members of an intentional community.
What are your thoughts?
]]>While contemplating this TOTW I shared one of my favorite quotes about clear thinking in an online discussion:
"The process of sound philosophizing, to my mind, consists mainly in passing from those obvious, vague, ambiguous things, that we feel quite sure of, to something precise, clear, definite, which by reflection and analysis we find is involved in the vague thing that we started from, and is, so to speak, the real truth of which that vague thing is a sort of shadow." --Bertrand Russell
The general consensus of the conversation was a bit different than mine: "This quote sucks!"
Oh well, you can't please everyone! It is still my favorite quote. To me, clear thinking means getting specific about terminology (i.e., what the words you are using 'mean'), refining concepts and their relationships with other concepts until they are consistent with each other, and making explicit the logical and/or real-world implications that these terms and concepts have.
And I really think this point is important practically and not just philosophically. Clear thinking is a critical foundation not only of good theory-building but also of having productive communication with others. Meaning is slippery. It depends on context and that context is not always shared between two people. Things usually seem to make more sense than they actually do once you try to explain them carefully. Few things are more frustrating than going around in circles in a conversation with someone whose definitions are constantly changing.
I think some people take issue with Russell's statement when he references a "definite... real truth"--as if he is implying that a definite real truth exists and can be solidified into permanence through analysis. I don't think he believed this, but I also don't think that would be necessary for clear thinking. It is possible to treat words as having a specific meaning that remains constant from sentence to sentence without believing that we have now brought into being a permanent construct that represents the idea in question. Conversation depends on it. Without assuming some level of immutability to the meaning of words, conversations go in circles.
What are your (hopefully clear!) thoughts about clear thinking? Is clear thinking important? Is it possible? What are some ways that you try to make either your own thinking and/or writing clear, or that you try to make clear the ideas of others when you are talking with them or reading their work? If the kind of analysis described by Russell misses the mark, what are some other meaningful ways to refine ideas?
]]>Incidentally, this is why I do not want to seize the "memes" of production. So many products of internet culture (including the "it was a joke" after-the-fact defence) are authoritarian by design, and we only taint ourselves by trying to use them.
Can you elaborate on this? I get how the "it was a joke" meme is authoritarian but I'm curious how this applies to all Internet memes.
]]>