2

Let's talk about users that quit the site because they are against indie anarchist politics

Submitted by ziq in lobby (edited )

Edited to remove link to the latest person that quit so it's not about any specific user, plus the snarky title.

This is a pattern that has been repeating almost from day 1 of raddle's existence. I talk about (my) anarchy, and people with different (collectivist) ideas about anarchy get angry at me, and somehow at all of raddle; as if I speak for everyone here.

They announce they're quitting raddle because of what they see as my 'inhumane' politics that 'promote human suffering', call me an 'anticommunist fuckstain' and '(primmie) dipshits ruin everything' (all direct quotes from different social anarchists that quit.)

Where are people getting these ideas from? How is individualist anarchism this repugnant to socialists?

And why do users feel the need to hold my politics against the whole site?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

Cheeks wrote

Holy shit! That is honestly a bit funny.

Ziq, you could spend a little less time on the offensive regardless of how frustrating some of these people can be.

From reading that thread I think a good amount of us should go back and read some the basics, specifically Proudhon.

4

ziq wrote

I always used to think mutualism was ridic but I've been appreciating it more lately.

5

Cheeks wrote (edited )

Yeah, mutualism from biological science hence kropotkins mutual aid, is on point. But we are speaking of the economic theory brand of mutualism hence Proudhon. My problem with it has always been Benjamin Tuckers interpretation which has provided fodder for the damned ancaps.

*edit * changed 'ergo' to 'hence.' Morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet. *

4

surreal wrote

isn't 'tit for tat' also part of social biology? i haven't reasearched mutualism enough, i have to do some reading.

4

Cheeks wrote

Also I think it's important to realize, as David Graeber repeatedly states in Debt the First 5000 years, that hard defined value economics is a relatively new phenomenon and is probably more closely related to private property than we could originally assume. 4 chickens only = 1 goat because money gives us an arbitrary unit of measument.

4

Cheeks wrote

Scientifically to an extent, philosophically very much so. Robert Axlrod did an extensive study on this in the early 80's and found that cooperating with an 'opponent' as long as they cooperate, and only retaliating when they were not cooperating, to be the only consistent stratagey to guarantee a victory. This is getting way beyond biology, and more so into gaming theory and ethics, but provides insight into the fundamental benefit of mutual aid over the bullshit pseudo science of Social Darwinism that dominates the collective brainwashed consciousness. But it is noteworthy to point out a lot of crackpot social theorists, most notably Ayn Rand, would use concepts like tit for tat to illustrate thier unfounded untested claims to further their philosophical validity.

4

Freux wrote

I don't like the "tit for tat" as people usually expect something in return for helping someone and that bother me a lot. Could even lead into currency of "this is a big favour I'm doing and you can't return such big favour so you have to do 3 favours for me!".

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I'd be interested to hear more about this.

(Specifically, what about it has made ziq appreciate it more recently. I've heard selver say good things about market anarchism that I found intriguing.)

4

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm interested lately in indie anarchy as 'artisinal socialism'. Small scale, loosesly affiliated cottage industries of artisans practicing their craft; learned from apprenticeships and other mutual aid. Self-sufficiency would be prioritized over relying on a giant faceless mega-industrial collective for all your needs.

3

martasultan wrote

As of recent I've liked mutualism purely because its probably the most 'socialist' anarchism where they still leave people alone if they wanna be left.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

It certainly walks the fence between social and indi anarchism in a way other indi forms of anarchy don't (with the possible exception of postciv.)

3

martasultan wrote (edited )

That's why I personally like it, with more illegalist aspects than most mutualists ascribe to. It's sort of a middle ground- not because I'm a centrist but because both are very attractive and mutualism seems to be something worth my time.

7

sudo wrote

Can you not air your dirty laundry in public every time you get into an argument? It's quite immature.

-2

ziq wrote

No. Ragequits are hilarious. Especially when they're caused by such a mild difference of opinion. I'm fascinated by the collectivist's psyche.

13

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I think I'm with sudo on this one.

edit: (not that it's immature; just that it's not desirable, because I don't want Raddle to be about you and your disagreements with others)

6

surreal wrote

when did anarchists become so soft and stubborn kids that refuse to evolve? What's the point of participating in a forum if you are not willing to change your mind and learn stuff? privilege of education and whatnot doesn't automatically mean all your opinions are correct.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Idk but I can't stand walking on eggshells like this any more. For years I couldn't even admit I was an indie anarchist or I'd get attacked and called all kinds of names by soc anarchists. I had to use an alt to be myself. I only started talking about my politics openly without hiding a few months ago.

3

selver wrote (edited )

I think it's less individualist anarchism & more your vibe that they have a problem with. No offense meant lol

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I mean, that doesn't explain them accusing individualist anarchy of 'maximising human suffering' and being 'inhumane' and 'humans suffering at the hands of whoever is strongest in the absence of any counterbalancing power'.

To me it suggest a complete irrational fear of anarchy.

3

Freux wrote (edited )

I saw how ridiculous they were but I wasn't aware that it continued and ended up with them leaving. I disagree with sudo since the argument was already public but I agree with Tequila_Wolf over not casting lights of it in the forums, I would welcome it in the chatroom.

Edit: Now that the thread has been edited, I have more to say. That specific person was an ass and I'm glad they left. Anarcho -socialism and -individualism can co-exist (in my opinion) as long as an-soc don't expect to keep the same way of life as now and respect the voluntarism part of anarchism.

1

ziq wrote

Okay I removed the link to it after talking to Tequila privately.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm not sure why they left just based on a disagreement with you. Seems quite a strong response; hopefully they are OK and they come back.

I do think that anarcho-syndicalism is an actual form of anarchism, and that some socialisms are compatible with some anarchisms. I also think that you might have misunderstood each other, perhaps because of a lack of clarity around their use of 'voting' and 'power structures', for example.

-1

ziq wrote

Good riddance. Trying to placate people that try to police your anarchy is a waste of life.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Especially ones that all but call you a monster that wants to 'maximise human suffering' and attack you because you're not in allignment with their particular niche ideology. I'm done putting up with this double standard...

When I talk about anarchy, any collectivist that wants to attack me and accuse me of somehow ruining raddle for not parroting the party line can expect me to respond in kind.

2

Praxis wrote

I'm not sure. Just criticism and and no way forward don't sound right to me.

Anarchism as I see it is that complexification.

1

[deleted] wrote

3

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm not an admin and even if I were should I really be expected to not share my views because of it? As anarchists we avoid holding people up as authorities.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq wrote

I pay the bills, I don't administrate the site. The admins are listed in the wiki and the f/meta sidebar. I don't have access to any admin tools.