Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa OP wrote

quoting Chomsky's darling syndicalist, how out of character!

5

kin wrote

This only shows how watered anarchism ™ can be.

Do we believe that all those people pushing Chomsky and Bookchin really had read anything that weren't mild Socialism?

5

subrosa OP wrote

I like to think of it as 'pipeline politics'. They read some Chomsky and Bookchin and then feel they hold the superior position, they know about the solution. Libertarian socialism. From there it's all about getting people "on our side".

If only there were more libertarian socialists, we would finally have true socialism!

It's a coherent-enough set of ideas, at least as long as the conversation stays focused on current developments in state politics, fascists, authoritarian Marxists, and ancaps. Libertarian socialism is arguably much more solid than all of the above. Depending on the individual's context I'm sure it can be a pretty big shift in perspective. Enough to put people at the margins of a more general political discussion — allowing a sense of radical opposition to the status quo, but without having to make excuses for Marxist failures, Marxist dictators.

But there's no anarchy in it. That idea is just a bit too troublesome, it complicates everything. And so we find ourselves with an anarchism™ that is primarily a theme of activism and revolt, without any of it necessarily revolving around anarchy. But who cares, it's all "good praxis" as long as we got a pipeline bringing people to our side. Wherever that is.

4

kin wrote

It's good to have a pipeline politics and introductory texts and authors, maybe sometimes I got carried on my remarks lol.

But for me, right now, antiwork, unschooling and libertarian dynamics in relationships is what is bringing more people to a less alienated state. Not so much the political discourse (including here the apolitical/anti political anarchist discourse).

I firmly believe that the great majority of people don't want anarchism or anything close to it, bc it's too much trouble to live by yourself. Many people in the left field, much more closer to us, wish a "good" socialism, something like Zizek always says, a big transnational govt that take care of all needs without the citizens knowing what is happening, like a blessed alienation. This people will embrace a Communist AI to rule a Unite Earth govt if possible. And when I say that I don't believe in this global anarchist future, I mean it, what we are supposed to do with all the opposite side? Close them in a enclave state? Send them to the moon? Sorry, Im digressing..

And I am sceptical about the inevitably path of this pipeline, I am not sure it is a logical conclusion to radicalize one's politics. I could be talking shit

3

subrosa OP wrote

Thus we arrive at the foundations of every system of rulership and recognise that all politics is in the last instance religion, and as such tries to hold the spirit of man in the chains of dependence.

There's some solid stuff in Nationalism and Culture. Politics originating in religion, economics in culture, it's not a bad framework.

4

subrosa OP wrote

As a rule it was nomadic hunter tribes which imposed their rule upon settled and agricultural people. The calling of the hunter, which constantly makes great demands on man’s activity and endurance, makes him by nature more warlike and predatory. But the farmer who is tied to his acre, and whose life as a rule runs more peacefully and less dangerously, is in most cases no friend of violent dispute.

Idk about that.

5

kin wrote

Christian BS, Cain and Abel, the first homicide...

4

ziq wrote

that's awesome

4