Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SnowCode OP wrote

The thing is that I don't want to be in prison or die by a cop. Why is the second type so bad? I don't want to change the world because I know I can't, but I want to change my environment anyway.

2

flingwingin wrote

i was tryna say theyre both bad, idk if that got across

like posties have this super radical critique and want to live as anarchs RIGHT NOW, but doing this will lead to consequences most can't handle (like smh good ol benzo renzo died in a shootout with cops), so they cope by saying "i'm doing what i want" but only doing the things they want which are in line with the dominant establishment's view of what's right - it's a life ruled by fear and at best it's just not radical at all (and i only bring this up because they seem to think they're enlightened egoist ubermenschen for doing what they want, when it's literally what the system is designed for).

also changing your environment is changing the world... unless you mean change which environment you're in, in which case fml why am i tryna give advice to a social ladder climbing leftist tryna just build more privilege fuck that, fuck the state, and fuck it's bribes. But i dont think thats what ur saying so idk. Like there's shit you can do which allows for you to change things and make shit better, but no one is asking you to be a whole social movement in one person and revolutionize the whole world and bring down all states. Tbh that's like almost always a strawman of revolutionary arguments that passive nihilists (aka BASIC LIBERAL SUBJECTs) bring up in order to justify having 0 solidarity and 0 compassion and just "focusing on myself"

anyways anyways im not trying to criticize you here, i just wanted to answer why posties say to live in the moment, and why it looks to you that living in the moment means being inactive - it's cause people coping with the facts of the state and a lack of nihilism

2

Garbear104 wrote

Because it doesn't further anarchism, only personal pleasure. It ls pretty selfish tbh. Worlds been changed alot before. Because people did shit. If you arent willing to do shit then what do you expect? The state to just roll over? No point pretending to care about those trampled if the most your willing to do is just not plan and larp for change

2

SnowCode OP wrote (edited )

Yes but on the other hand, I won't change the world. I am just one individual among a lot of others. Why would focus on your own happiness be selfish? Helping others can make you happy as well.

Why couldn't it further anarchism? It all depends on what you do. If someone wants to let's say be an hermit, is that selfish (they should be free to do so and they don't participate in the capitalist society, I guess)?

1

flingwingin wrote

not garbear, but tbh i do think that if you come from this society and want to become a hermit, that's selfish. I wouldn't dream of trying to stop someone though, and i'd be happy one person at least got out, but i do think it's worthy of moral condemnation to run away and leave everyone else in the same shit situation. But yeah idk we don't have any duties to each other or to lift everyone up - especially not against their own ability and wishes - but it's still morally broke imo. Like fuck the hermit, have some solidarity, we're still fucked over in here. Not everyone has the privilege to be a hermit. Or if it's not a privilege thing, have some solidarity n help others get out of the system. Fuck hermits

1