AnarchoSpook

AnarchoSpook wrote (edited )

Ah yes, I agree with the point. Maybe "middle class" is not a very helpful conceptualization after all. Especially now with neoliberalism rebooting capitalism to its default mode (after the anomalous 1950-1970) and society finds itself in early 1900s in terms of inequality. This will I suppose be even more the case in covid times with so much of the middle class being indebted and forced into precarious jobs.

2

AnarchoSpook wrote

Sure, but doesn't it also imply property relations? If you are middle class, you're likely to feel more protected by cops since they are also guarding your property and the bureaucratic system which you—to some degree—have stakes in.

2

AnarchoSpook wrote

Graeber in the Utopia of Rules provided a definition which I was very fond of: "[...] the real definition of being "middle class" is whether, when one sees a policeman on the street, one feels more, rather than less, safe."

9

AnarchoSpook wrote

Reply to by !deleted25567

Sorry that I won't be very specific in my response. I think many of your feelings are commonly felt by all non-conformers in society, and yet many more are endemic to this society; increasingly, this air of cynicism and depression can be properly called a global problem. Especially the last months I think intensified this and the unbearability of the situtation might have disillusioned many others who had last drops of hope in the future under this system. I've also been struggling with unending idleness, dismotivation, and lack of meaning. Theoretically I can say that Nietzsche's affirmation of life really helped me through with this. I can recommend a not-so-demanding secondary read of Nietzsche Nietzsche and Anarchy. On the non-theoretical side, it might help to invent some very small daily activities, anything that could encourage a bit of curiosity, really. Needless to say, the biggest help would be social interactions, and maybe meeting new people in particular, but unfortunately it's much harder to do this nowadays, yet still not impossible.

1

AnarchoSpook wrote

Well any kind of appeal starting with "You should always" is referring back to some transcendent plane of ethics detached from direct experience. There is also a striking resemblance between the assumptions of institutional justice imposed by authority and these kind of claims. imo anarchist ethics is really about the inclusion of all but domineering perspectives (whether collective or individual) of the world as we recognize and act on it here and now.

2

AnarchoSpook wrote

Reply to by !deleted18811

If you have criticisms towards Raddle's structure or f/Anarchism in particular, would you mind elaborating on them? I'm quite critical of Reddit and would like to hear your reasoning.

2

AnarchoSpook wrote (edited )

This can very well change over the long course of human development, but right now I think nuclear power is inextricably linked to centralized management. Putting the environmental impacts aside, I don't even think the infrastructure and logistics can be run directly democratically. Nuclear power plants are basically concentrated energy output facilities. They need to be connected to a huge electricity grid designed to distribute energy from the centres to the peripheries--see the problem here? Another issue being—again, disregarding the very significant environmental consequences—the extraction and processing of nuclear ores, which require their own facilities. These are, if you ask me, breeding grounds for technocratic structures & high specialization of labour.

7

AnarchoSpook wrote

Reply to by !deleted8445

Just watched Citizenfour by Laura Poitras, a film documenting her first contact with Snowden and the developments that followed. Aside from its subject matter, I really loved the production techniques, whether it be interesting shot angles or the portrayal of the events from different perspectives. The long duration of the shots make it really immersive.

4