Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

−2

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?

7

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.

−1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

ziq wrote

what exactly?

White supremacy.

3

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.

0

[deleted] wrote

3

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.

1