Comments

16

Brick wrote (edited )

Yes! Great idea for an askraddle.

I love to turn my boss's against each other psychologically.

Steal boss 1's food out of the fridge, eat half of it, and put the rest on boss 2's desk while boss 2 is out. Get boss 1 to go to boss 2's desk for some made up reason.

I do stuff like this all the time and it keeps them both deeply distrustful of each other and makes the company ineffective.

6

Brick wrote

Kropotkin explains it best:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-state-its-historic-role

Marxists have the bad (but deliberate) habit of confusing 'state' for 'society'. So of course they always end up making allowances for statism both in theory and practice.

Since they have a monopoly on the word 'communism', we're better off using our word because it's been conceived to not make allowances for hierarchy or 'temporary' states.

Anarchism is more than a set of economic theories - it's an unending struggle for autonomy and a stand against authority. Marxism doesn't gel with anarchy's primary drive, and that's why there's so much conflict between us historically. We simply don't want the same things.

1

Brick wrote

Is there any functional difference when they control the concept of God and use it to rule? If the concept of God is constantly seized by our rulers and used to control us, is it even worth attempting to sculpt an alternative perspective of God? Won't that perspective ultimately become corrupted too, and used to rule us? Isn't the entire concept of God, or a superior being that decides our fate, ultimately oppressive?

5

Brick wrote (edited )

The "against all unjustified hierarchies" definition of anarchy is a fallacy. It could just as easily apply to any political group, for instance:

Monarchists: "hierarchy is justified by divine right, royal blood, hereditary titles, the size of your armies, the bounty your ships can plunder."

Republicans: "hierarchy is justified by the so-called 'consent' of the governed, borders, nationality."

Ancaps: "hierarchy is justified by 'voluntary' (ha) choice, property ownership, ability to earn wealth."

Fascists: "hierarchy is justified by racial purity, nationality, military might."

So how are anarchists different from all these believers in 'justified hierarchy'? It's simple: We reject all attempts to justify hierarchies.

We oppose being ruled altogether, we don't simply request less rulers be placed over us.

Anarchy is a total lack of any hierarchy, rulers, or authority. We see all these things as unjustified.

If you decide some hierarchy is justified, you've stopped being an anarchist and are using the descriptor in bad faith.

4

Brick wrote

I agree and am a little freaked out by the tomes of text some anarchists expect you to read in general just to oppose hierarchy and oppression. We don't need to be over-read scholars to be anarchists and it does more damage than good when anarchists build intellectual walls around their movements. It's just another form of vanguardism.