Submitted by [deleted] in lobby (edited )

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

_caspar_ wrote

"If Anarchism is the negation of all rule, power, and authority "

arguably power cannot be negated and is behind every force shaping the cosmos. its negation would be an impossible stasis.

summarizing anarchism into something so short is a tough one, but I think something like: "If Anarchism is a set of practices in tension against both ruling and being ruled, then Egoism can be a compatible philosophy to inform these practices by liberating oneself from the abstractions that justify authority." gets closer to the point. but maybe thats too wordy. (I tend to avoid framing things as obvious or easy to see/understand because I think it wrongly assumes that of the reader.)

" Anarchism itself, has a split between "negative" and "creative" branches. "

Im not so sure. the core of Stirner's argument is that there is no essential foundation for ontology: nothing is at the core of our existence. "I base my affair on nothing" could also be read as no-thing, an non-materialist rejection of the subject/object divide. though theres certainly an emphasis on ridding oneself of ideological foundations, the generative practice of the creative nothing is just as emphasized. and while I agree that collectivist anarchism is invested in creating organizational models, the maintenance of these models leads to a lack of creativity at best, and a rigid orthodoxy at worst. I dont find the negative/positive framing all that helpful.

my criticism aside, I think your summaries of these ideas are well put.

as far as misconceptions, I think the biggest one (and likely responsible for the others on your list) is an overly literal reading of the Ego (and to be fair, poorly translated) as an atomistic and almost social Darwinian individualism. Im really not a fan of the term ego/ism, and to a lesser extent individual/ism, because of this, but its been stuck and I dont see how to dislodge it without annoyingly arguing this point every time its mentioned.

6

OdiousOutlaw OP wrote

arguably power cannot be negated and is behind every force shaping the cosmos. its negation would be an impossible stasis.

I just didn't wanna use "hierarchy" because I'm tired of seeing it. You've got a point about restraining the word "power" to its Sociopolitical use, though.

"If Anarchism is a set of practices in tension against both ruling and being ruled, then Egoism can be a compatible philosophy to inform these practices by liberating oneself from the abstractions that justify authority." gets closer to the point. but maybe thats too wordy. (I tend to avoid framing things as obvious or easy to see/understand because I think it wrongly assumes that of the reader.)

I like your suggestion, actually. My general thinking when writing this is that since ziq is going to be linking this in the FAQ that they're putting together, I'd write it in a way that assumes that the reader is unfamiliar with anarchism. I'll be leaving the Reading section of the current /w/egoism Wiki page alone unless someone has any suggested additions or subtractions.

as far as misconceptions, I think the biggest one (and likely responsible for the others on your list) is an overly literal reading of the Ego (and to be fair, poorly translated) as an atomistic and almost social Darwinian individualism. Im really not a fan of the term ego/ism, and to a lesser extent individual/ism, because of this, but its been stuck and I dont see how to dislodge it without annoyingly arguing this point every time its mentioned.

Yeah, it seems like the two "Egoism encourages" subsections could be merged into one. Especially since I'll be expanding upon points made in the "Mutual Aid" sections, my plan has always been to use that section to dispel the rugged individualist reading of the Ego.

I appreciate the criticism, thanks!

3

_caspar_ wrote

no worries, if youd like a hand filling any sections out, let me know. I dont have a ton of time these days, but can get around to it when I can.

3

OdiousOutlaw OP wrote

Contributions are encouraged.

Feel free to revise or add on to whatever strikes your fancy; I'm not super attached to any of it and I'd like as many contributions other than myself as possible.

3

OdiousOutlaw OP wrote

Alright, I managed to fill in the Egoist Anarchist sections and I made revisions to the Anarchism vs Egoism section.

The next part is the "Common Misconceptions" section, which I look forward to and dread writing.

Still taking critiques, suggestions, and additional ideas. Feel free to not pull punches on the "Post-left" section, I really petered out there.

3