a_zed_9 wrote
I've never heard the ethno-state argument. But the reason I oppose reparations, and often hear from others, is that it is mediated through the state and capital. As any reparations in terms of land or wealth upholds commodification. As well reparations is often seen, and I agree, as reformist.
Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )
This is like saying you oppose anticapitalism because you don't like Marx's work.
There are plenty other ways to do it, Marxism shouldn't represent the whole, especially given it is a false solution, easily coopted, and an experienced failure.
The most simple way for anarchists to do reparations is to seriously organise resources to cross directly from settlers to indigenous people or other relevant racialised people they are in affinity with, on the terms of those people. There need be no states involved nor capitalist relations. The basic principles are not complicated, same as most things anarchic.
a_zed_9 wrote
Even without state involvement im not interested in helping any group gain any sort of wealth or land, since I'm opposed to both. I have only ever heard of reparations discussed in these terms, getting wealth and land either from the state or from "settlers", so that is why I stated im opposed to it, if there are other meanings of the word I would have to evaluate that on its own terms, im just unaware.
I would say even without state involvement I would still see this form of reparations as reformist since it is focused on goals which align with civilized values in my analysis, primarily reinforcing ideas of wealth and property. As well I think this means of achieving this end is less effective then petitioning the state, since it relies almost exclusively on whote guilt. As well I don't think white guilt is something that can be used for "radical" ends, at least in my experience and understanding it almost exclusively leads itself to "charity" or more liberal/reformist strategies. This has been written about a bit often with the language "allys vs accomplices" though I find even many of these texts are still quite limited in their analysis.
Tequilx_Wolf wrote
You are coming off as super disingenuous. When people rent space to run infoshops, I assume you don't go out of your way to express how they are reinforcing property relations and are actually reformist?
Regardless, there are ways to do reparations and infoshops without any property relations, through direct expropriation, occupation, and sharing. You are limiting your perception of reparations to this limited way.
Do you think that mutual aid proper is reformist? Anarchist reparations are just a form of mutuality.
I have only ever heard of reparations discussed in these terms, getting wealth and land either from the state or from "settlers", so that is why I stated im opposed to it, if there are other meanings of the word I would have to evaluate that on its own terms, im just unaware.
That's what I'm saying exists.
I would still see this form of reparations as reformist since it is focused on goals which align with civilized values
Why, if as I said the resources were going to people you are in affinity with? If you have two properties, and return a stolen one to people you are in affinity with, how much more property relations are involved?
a_zed_9 wrote
When people rent space to run infoshops, I assume you don't go out of your way to express how they are reinforcing property relations and are actually reformist?
I do hold this opinion.
Do you think that mutual aid proper is reformist? Anarchist reparations are just a form of mutuality.
I am opposed to most mutual aid. The "mutual aid" I do advocate for is purely in the sharing of skills through ones lifestyle.
Why, if as I said the resources were going to people you are in affinity with? If you have two properties, and return a stolen one to people you are in affinity with, how much more property relations are involved?
I don't have "affinity" with anyone. I also don't believe one should return stolen property, as the idea of theft (stolen) reproduces both morality (criminality) and property (ownership).
That's what I'm saying exists.
Do you have any texts you recommend on these forms of reparations outside of the critiques I've put forth?
Regardless, there are ways to do reparations and infoshops without any property relations, through direct expropriation, occupation, and sharing. You are limiting your perception of reparations to this limited way.
To be honest I have not considered sharing or expropriation to be reparations. I still have the same issue with the reproduction of these institutional values (property, wealth) from these tactics but I agree these tactics do not appeal to "the system at large" nor directly reproduce it.
You are coming off as super disingenuous.
If you can elaborate on what you mean I can try my best to avoid the behavior you dislike if it is within my ability, but it is not my intention to come off as such, simply to contribute to the discussion with my own analysis and criticism.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
ziq wrote
what exactly?
White supremacy.
a_zed_9 wrote (edited )
I believe my actions remove me from these institutions i hope to escape. So for example, instead of participating in this tactic you advocate, I am homeless and jobless to escape these institutions.
Edit: I should also add i do not think one should be "ideologically pure before acting. I am just stating that I do not think that your tactic, reparations, can achieve your end, ending settler colonialism. I think this because with these institutions of property, wealth and capital, non-humans and possibly different groups of humans would still be exploited and forced out of their ecosystems.
I personally would never participate in the tactic of an infoshop or renting a space or reparations since I don't think it can achieve any of my goals. That is all I mean to imply with my statements. I think everyone should build their own analysis of what their goals are and how to achieve them. If you think reparations is a goal/tactic you want to achieve I'm not trying to change that just to also state my stance.
In terms of "opposing concrete action that would help elevate oppressed people" I would say for the most part you are right. I think many groups get caught up in reformist measures to make life tolerable that they then become recuperate with the systems that dominated them in the first place. So in a way I am opposed to short term concrete measures to improve marginalized peoples lives (including my own) since this would only be improvement in terms of civilized values and does not address the systems that negate our autonomy.
[deleted] wrote
a_zed_9 wrote
I don't think that dropping out reproduces these systems but if you want to elaborate on how they do feel free to.
I honestly feel the opposite, in that these reliefs sustain the "status quo" through recuperation and channeling our desires through these civilized values.
To be honest I'm unsure why you use language like "living on that pedestal" or "perfect anarchy". I know my analysis is not perfect, I have already stated this in my discussion about why I share my thoughts in hopes of critiques that can help me build a better analysis. I do not think my analysis is perfect but it is what I have, just as your analysis is what you have, and so I want to take actions that align with thoughts, and both change over time. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think you are "lesser" or that you should just accept what I say. My only goal here is to just share my own thoughts and to likewise hear your thoughts. If there is something in my phrasing or anything like that, that has given you this impression of "superiority" or whatever for these comments I would appreciate if you shared.
I would also state as I commented with Ziq, blanket statement ls like "white supremacist" or "not anarchist" don't really mean anything to me besides "bad". If you could elaborate why you disagree or how it is these things then I could make sense of it, but obviously you are not obligated.
With regard to the "poor brown people" all I will say, as I believe I have stated this elsewhere in the thread, is I don't view white guilt as an effective tactic. White people feeling bad for me, or for other non-white people, cannot help me attain any of my goals (or attain my autonomy) in my analysis. If you would like me to elaborate I can.
ziq wrote
Since the state is in control of the settler civilization, and the state stole the land, enslaved the people and orchestrated the genocide, who else is going to give the stolen land / wealth back? Are colonized people just supposed to wait until settlers decide to collectively abolish their state so they can mediate directly with 250000000 settlers? Something that will never, ever happen, because settlers depend on their state to uphold white supremacy and ensure colonized people remain firmly under the boots of settlers.
a_zed_9 wrote
I agree only the state can give land or wealth, since it is through the state that property and wealth are created. However personally I have no interest in acquiring land or wealth as part of a political project, I want to abolish property and wealth, not attempt to aquire it.
I do think part of this opposition to property and wealth includes opposition to "settlers" and participation in settler colonialism (as well as all other institutions) but I think focusing a political project on the acquisition of land and or wealth ultimately fails to adequately critique and "exit" these institutions.
What I advocate for, instead of this acquisition of wealth/land is for individuals to attempt to exit these institutions. I wrote about this in my essay on Anarcho-Lifestylism. Where instead of pushing for reformist measures which would benefit people in "civilized terms" individuals should instead work on building lifestyles outside of these civilized institutions and ideology. I believe this is necessary in order to truly escape the ideology and instution of property and capital which is a focus of many analysis, but also applies to other concepts, one I expand upon in the text is leaving the workplace to escape the instution of labor and the ideology of work and productivity.
ziq wrote (edited )
The only way indigenous people within settler states can have back their autonomy and thus potentially anarchy (if they want it) is if the settler state cedes control of land and resources to them so they don't need to depend on the state and its 'reservations' for survival. The state needs to return land fully, which is to say, agree to respect their sovereignty whether they establish nations or autonomous zones or whatever each group desires. Only by being released from the settler state's rule can indigenous people be free to determine their own outcomes. This requires land and, at least initially, capital.
a_zed_9 wrote
I disagree with this analysis, and have already stated why, if you would like to elaborate on how you think this methodology can be effective, or respond to my criticism that using such means only reproduces capital feel free but otherwise this is to me only a restatement of your point without elaborating.
ziq wrote
I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.
You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.
Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?
a_zed_9 wrote
I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.
I am not a communist, as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.
You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.
I completely agree and apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism, though I do believe that capital relates to civilization as a whole not just capitalism, but I do recognize the term is often used for capitalism. I believe that ones critique must go much further but I think to expand in detail would be beyond the scope of this convo since it seems focused on wealth and property.
Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?
My analysis is not about getting indigenous people to "accept either my terms", I am indifferent to if indigenous people, or anyone else agrees with my analysis. My analysis is for myself, I share it in hopes that others may find it useful, or if not, may offer a critique that is useful to me. I accept the agency if indigenous people, they will do what they will do, and I will do what I will do. What I am concerned with is combating the systems that may limit that "autonomy" and how best, in my own analysis, to combat them. As to the question "who gives a shot if you aprove?" You should not care for my approval, you should see if there is anything I have said that is useful, and if not discard it, and if you feel so compelled, to offer where you disagree.
ziq wrote
I am not a communist
I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer to denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief, while fully participating in capitalism every day of your life. You've even tried to institutionalize lifestylism into an ideology by writing an 'anarcho-lifestylist' manifesto, and you want to talk about the benefits of child rape as ideology. You live and breathe communism. You are the full manifestation of a leftist ideologue.
as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.
Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis'. The opinions you're spouting are not analysis, they're pure ideology. You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.
I apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism
Please don't think you need to apologize to me. I don't know you, don't care to know you and am not affected emotionally by anything you say. But I will continue to point out the absolute absurdity of your words as you continue to unleash them on the world.
a_zed_9 wrote
I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer
I don't see how my opposition to capital and property is ideological. We haven't even discussed why I am opposed to it. To elaborate, I oppose both since they are systems/institutions and as such deny my autonomy and the autonomy of all things. Is this what you mean by ideological? Or could you elaborate if not?
denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief,
I haven't denounced anyone, unless you take all disagreement as denouncement. hile fully participating in capitalism every day of your life
While fully participating in capitalism every day of your life
I agree most people, and definitely no one you will find here is fully free from capitalism, civilization settler colonialism etc. My point though is that there are extents by which people participate, and there are different institutions which comprise these things as a whole. So I think opposing capital, and opposing wealth and opposing property are things that are effective in escaping these systems. Amd so they are methods I employ and "advocate" or share.
Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis
I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility for what you say". I said it, it is plain for all to see, what beyond that do you take as "taking responsibility"? I am simply saying you don't have to, and in fact I will state I think you should not, blindly accept what I say, just as I don't blindly accept what you say, and that is what I mean by beholdent.
Please don't think you need to apologize to me.
Okay.
You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.
Slinging words like "faux post-left" "colonialist" "comunist" doesn't really mean anything to me. You could just replace it with bad. It would make more sense to me if you expanded on what has led you to think this. What makes me a colonialist? Is it because I disagree with you? Because that is the only reasoning I currently see.
Garbear104 wrote
nsisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency
I think it just makes them an actual anarchist who doesn't sell out their ideas when someone tries to guilt trip them. A state us a state even if its ran by a differnet group of people, and I dont support any state.
If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve? Them and you care. Without help you get nothing. So it's best to not try and piss off everyone who could help. Anarchists want anarchism. Not an indigenous council. You may at the wrong place if you want otherwise.
ziq wrote
TIL an actual anarchist is someone who forces a program on others before they'll give them their oh-so-important approval.
You're not an 'actual anarchist' for forcing your ideology on people you've colonized. Fuck your anarcho-settler ideology. Fuck anyone who thinks they can impose their way of life or their ideology on others.
Them and you care. Without help you get nothing. So it's best to not try and piss off everyone who could help.
Settlers will never lift a fucking finger for colonized people. I think we've demonstrated that with the constant flood of anarcho-settler bullshit this week.
Also, learn to use quotes: >
Because I wouldn't want anyone to think my words are coming out of your mouth.
Garbear104 wrote
I dont need approval to stop a pig from hurting someone nor do I to oppose our state so why do I need it to oppose theirs? Stay consistent comrade. Flipping away all your ideas the moment you see a idffermet colored person doesn't make ya look good. It isnt complicated im not gonna help form a state. I dont care if its yours or theirs or anyone else's. Anarchists strive for anarchy. Not some dipshit transisitionary period. Your using the same weak cop outs leninists use.
ziq wrote
I hope the big scary indigenous state you've built in your fragile little settler mind comes alive and swallows you up.
if this is who I think it is, and let's face it, only you could be this frightened of reparations, I look forward to you rage deleting your account again the next time I call out your shit. Settler trash.
Garbear104 wrote
Bro I've got know clue who the fuck you think i am but ill say you seem to have some wierd delusions of self importance. Call me settler trash all you want you authoritarian scumfuck, it won't change a thing.
ziq wrote
Settler trash
Garbear104 wrote
Quite witty. Youve beaten me this time o great authoritarian one. Please do not step on my with your peoples boot. Your a fucking clown
ziq wrote
Settler trash
Garbear104 wrote
I think its funny that you have to ignore how your using the same transitionary state garbage that leninists use. Could you reply to that instead of continuing flop about?
ziq wrote
Settler trash
Garbear104 wrote
I see. Well its good to know that a fellow "anarchist" can't even explain the differences between their defence of authority and that of a leninist.
ziq wrote
Settler trash
[deleted] wrote
ziq wrote
Can we not entertain their shitty strawman? No one said anything about transitionary states. Anarcho-settlers don't get to dictate how indigenous people use their land if it's returned to them.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
ziq wrote
Settlers aren't real anarchists, they're perpetual colonizers.
Garbear104 wrote
Its working about as good as trying to get people on board with your leninist style transition state. Like honestly. What the fuck was the point in your comment? Give up cuz its hard and not happening overnight? Nah, ill pass on that like ill pass on the ethno state
[deleted] wrote
Garbear104 wrote
itd wierd you were competent enough to type out multiple paragraphs of insults to try and make yourself feel better but you can't fathom how yall are using tankie talking points to defend your anarcho police and state. Fucking clown
[deleted] wrote
Garbear104 wrote
interesting. Would you like to respond to how you are using the same arguments leninists and ccp shills use or will you dodge it again like every other tankie clown has done thus far?
mima wrote
But the reason I oppose reparations, and often hear from others, is that it is mediated through the state and capital. As any reparations in terms of land or wealth upholds commodification. As well reparations is often seen, and I agree, as reformist.
This is a dogmatic view of things. The reason why armed struggle exists is because the state won't give back the things they stole from other people without giving a fight. If the state, somehow, becomes generous and gives back the land without any bloodshed, why should we turn it down?
Tactics needs to be diversified. Armed struggle and peaceful, legal struggle should go hand-in-hand, not alone. Otherwise, the struggle would surely go down in defeat.
a_zed_9 wrote
It's not the tactic I'm opposed to, I don't care if they get the land from the state for free or take it by force. I'm opposed to the existence of property so I could never support either since this goal reproduces property and ownership.
Garbear104 wrote
careful. You might get a temp ban for being a racist settler. Not supporting indigenous states is anti anarchist
a_zed_9 wrote
Im not one to shy away from antagonist in a comment. Meaning I want to challenge ideas I disagree with. Bit I see no point in this petty antagonist here. The point you are trying to make is already abundantly clear, I think already stated it twice. It'd be more useful to contribute something to the conversation then to egg on another ban.
Garbear104 wrote
Your right. I apologize for using your comment as a way to vent frustrations.
a_zed_9 wrote
It's alright. I appreciate the apology.
Garbear104 wrote
Thank you for being understanding and to the point. Im gonna try to work on my ability to make sure my words always have some purpose behind em and not just say shit to start shit.
a_zed_9 wrote
Well there's definitely a time and place to talk shit. I just don't think talking shit to an admin on their own board is the brightest plan.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments