DarkArmillary

DarkArmillary wrote

u/DarkArmiiiary (with capital i's instead of L's) is an imposter account, harrassing me, trolling me, bizarrely spending a lot of effort targeting me specifically. I've seen on the moderation log that people have in the past been banned for imposter accounts and harassment. That's the case here. You don't have to keep catering to this one toxic troll. It's just bad praxis.

1

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted30 in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

These are mostly fair questions; the answer to all of them is 'no.'

Though they don't get at the main reason this is baseless: it's just anecdotal.

Anecdotes can have power, especially as they accumulate and become a pattern. As anecdotal evidence however, it's nothing I've ever seen or experienced, nor heard others raise as a problem in particular. I've heard and seen the term used on quite a few occasions, with specific meaning, none of them insulting of queer people at all. If there are any articles or perhaps an array of screenshots that demonstrate the term has been used to denigrate people on the basis of their sexuality, then I'm open to considering that, if it exists.

As a term or a word I don't hold it especially "dear." But I do advocate for accuracy and clarity in speech for many terms.

−1

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by 1998822 in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

I've often seen the term lifestylism being shoved against queer people for literally trying to survive and live.

Really just baseless slander there.

−4

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by lori in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

People have been struggling against oppression for millennia. Of course there's history there, and you could have gone back further.

Obviously I'm not speaking ill, or taking anything away from the people who have been doing the fighting and the dying for their freedom and the freedom of others in the Kurdistan region, to bring up the fact that Bookchin's writings were highly influential to that social revolution. You'd think an anarchist would recognize that it's a positive thing that Bookchin's anarchist / anarchistic writings were influential in turning a social movement away from authoritarianism.

https://internationalistcommune.com/bookchin-kurdish-resistance/

−1

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by 7b48dfb784360de35598f8dd3 in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

u/nousername, I wish people on this site were into anarchism as a philosophy, and could, for instance, discuss values and explain their reasoning. But most seem to rely on it as Ideology, sometimes with an almost cult-like fervor (which is itself a sign of Ideology).

Philosophy is dynamic and critical; Ideology is static and dogmatic.

Philosophy is wide-ranging and dialogical; Ideology is narrow and prescribed, leading to a demanding and authoritarian groupthink. It can, and does, happen within anarchism.

Philosophy is the very movement of thought; Ideology calcifies and stultifies thought.

0

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by DarkArmiIIary in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

Nah, one of my major criticisms is with the ideologues, who put ideology and group-think above critical thinking, actual material concerns, and empathy. The result tends to be toxic and repulsive, as seen on this very site.

Also I wonder if the mods will have the decency to shut down your impersonator account...?

[ u/bloodrose ]

−3

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to OK Bookchin by zoochotic

Anarchist lifestylists: "woohoo Rojava Revolution, permanent insurrection aw hell yeah! PS, fuck Murray Bookchin. What did he ever do for Anarchism anyway?"

−10

DarkArmillary wrote

"The meme is mostly used by young people on social media to respond to perceived condescension from older users – but it’s been touted as a way to understand why job and life prospects are constrained for so many young people. It’s not capitalists, it’s not the politicians who serve them – it’s “boomers”, or everyone born in the two decades after the second world war.

Like much of online culture, “OK Boomer” tells us something about the cultural dominance of upper-middle-class youth. These young people are surrounded by baby boomers who’ve “hoarded all the wealth” and polluted the planet in the process. They haven’t had to witness – or deal with the ramifications of – old age and precarity for millions of working people in that generational cohort. Instead they get to revel without self-reflection in oedipal angst about their elders – many of whom were kind enough to pass them their ill-gotten privileges.

Workers of all ages, after all, barely earn enough to survive, much less save for retirement. A 2018 PBS Newshour report notes that half of Americans approaching age 65 have less than $25,000 in savings. One in four don’t even have $1,000. ... "After all, the problem with generational analysis is that even though it claims to be rooted in economic realities, it cannot see the reality of class. There were plenty of “Gen Xers” and older “millennials” convincing “boomers” to refinance away the small amount of wealth they had accumulated. There were also plenty of “boomers” who didn’t feel any generational solidarity while exploiting people their own age and amassing vast fortunes in the process."

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/06/ok-boomer-meme-older-generations

−2

DarkArmillary wrote (edited )

As someone who is neither a boomer nor a zoomer, I am neither insulted nor amused by it. To me it just sounds immature, like a sarcastic teenage comment directed at their parents or grandparents. I'm not convinced by the attempt at dressing it up in a structural analysis, as I've known plenty of boomer activists who have been fighting the good fight for longer than I've been alive.

[https://pics.me.me/god-where-has-this-meme-been-all-my-life-your-34594369.png]

−1

DarkArmillary wrote

In regards to potential futures...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/24/four-futures-life-after-capitalism-peter-frase-review-robots

"Peter Frase gives four answers to this question in Four Futures: Life After Capitalism. He offers two heavens and two hells: two ways that automation might facilitate a flourishing of human life, and two ways that it might maximise human misery. In all of these potential futures, automation is the constant; what changes is the political and ecological context – in other words, who owns the robots and how climate change affects the resources on which technology depends. ... Technology doesn’t dictate outcomes. Rather, it sets the parameters of possibility."

−1

DarkArmillary wrote

I agree with some points you made and disagree with others. As you mentioned, our goal, ultimately, is to have direct control over production (whatever our workplace happens to be); as well as the goal of the abolition of classes (more specifically than a "worker-led" economy, which may or may not get us there).

So direct control is the ultimate goal, but I don't see UBI as some insurmountable obstacle to achieving that goal. In fact they can be complementary.

Where I disagree is all the points of speculation that this argument takes as a given — for instance, if there is a UBI, then of course people will get "comfortable" and lazy and stop standing up for their rights. I disagree. That right there is a conservative / capitalist viewpoint on what motivates human action. There is some truth to it; after all that's why many capitalist social programs exist in the first place. But I think a UBI could help free people from their obligation to capitalist work, which will allow time for other human activities (including revolutionary ones).

"Neo-feudalism is the only future of UBI + automation. A society in which the rich control and dictate all matters of state and society, and whatever remains of the working class is left to collect whatever scraps the rich allow them to have."

I understand the argument that says that a certain type of neo-feudalism is a possible future with a UBI. Yes, it is a possibility. But it's not the only future that could come about. Such statements regarding the inevitability of future events comes from a self-reinforcing (and perhaps self-serving) ideological belief. And it also belies a complete disbelief in collective human action to change circumstances.

We don't particularly need to speculate about future feudalism anyway, as the world you describe in which the rich throw down table scraps to the working class, is already the world we live in today.

"UBI potentially eliminates the one power that workers have over their capitalist overlords - their labor. "

This is old school leftist dogma. That's workerism, or work fetishization. It's a messianic hope in the General Strike (we're still waiting). It is implicitly saying people need to suffer (through work) if we ever want to reach the Good society. There are many tactics and strategies other than strikes that people use to resist, and fight back, and disengage from institutions of power. And there are different forms of strikes as well.

"If you remove the capitalists need for workers and their labor, what incentive do the capitalists have for keeping UBI or any other social programs?"

No offense, but this sounds like a slave mentality to me: 'Let us remain as slave workers, so that we're useful to our overlords and they will have mercy upon us.' What incentive do they have now? Profit, power over others; and to prevent unrest, which is the ultimate point of capitalist social programs.

"UBI does nothing to address the power dynamics between the classes. The workers will still be entirely dependent on the capitalists for their necessities. "

I think it does change the power dynamics between classes, in at least two potentially meaningful ways. As far as the ownership of MOP goes, no it doesn't automatically transfer ownership of MOP to workers, so that element of the power dynamic remains, and the fact that people will still buy food and goods from capitalist businesses means it all gets funneled into capitalist pockets anyway. BUT — a UBI provides an opening for workers to acquire MOP by pooling money together and buying assets — such as automated equipment (or whatever). A UBI could eventually lead to a lot more worker-owned cooperatives. That is one way a Dual Power situation could come about. And that also addresses your argument that people will have to buy their necessities from capitalists — maybe they wouldn't have to, if say, enough food production cooperatives get rolling.

Lastly I'll bring up the most important part about worker-capitalist relations. It could definitely be argued that $1000/month is not a suitable amount to live on, but if you don't think an extra $1000 a month is going to help you or give you more agency to act in our capitalist world, then you must be better off financially than me and a lot of other people. For me, I know it would make a big difference, and it could change workplace dynamics significantly. People put up with so much authoritarian shit from their bosses and employers — because we have to to survive. If workers had a certain financial security, as with a UBI, then they could feel more free to raise concerns about their workplace, and push back against petty authoritarian bosses. You don't have to strike if you can just quit.

0

DarkArmillary wrote

I'm thinking you should do a little research about both those terms, "metamodern" and "reactionary." We live in reactionary times. Don't go labeling people reactionaries for no good reason. That's essentially snitchjacketing as the intent is to cause hostility between activists. Bad praxis.

"The Problem With Irony:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4

−5

DarkArmillary wrote

Thank you comrade, for calling attention to the same type of toxic dynamics I've encountered in radical spaces time and time again. It never goes over well when I bring it up. I would hope that some post-lefties could recognize the detrimental effects of Ideology.

We (well, society) needs to develop a more sincere "metamodern" way of thinking and relating to one another.

−4

DarkArmillary wrote (edited )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGu__oqMcKM

(Someone's comment on the video: "There's an elitism and lifestylism that goes with radical politics which can be both absurd and counter-productive for a political philosophy intended to be populist and egalitarian. This fine song is 'taking the piss' at this tendency within the radical left. At least that's my take.")

−3

DarkArmillary wrote

The third option is to respond mockingly and dismissively to bad faith actors - in which case they then create alts to complain about how the site is authoritarian and unwelcome to anyone who doesn't conform (that part looks a lot like your post, actually, how strange... I'm sure that's just a coincidence, isn't it?).

This OP is from a different person, I only have this one acct. However, it's more than mere coincidence that this poster and myself agree on the existence of this dynamic in @ and rad-left spaces. It's because we both see it for what it is.

When I read comments like yours, I think you must not have been in radical spaces all that long, or else you would have some sense of what we're talking about, considering we are not the first people to recognize such a dynamic and be critical of it. This toxic dynamic goes back at least to the 80s or late 70s, and it finds new forms on the internet.

If you can't figure out if someone is engaging in good faith or bad faith, give them the benefit of the doubt until it is obvious to you. It's not that difficult tbh. The first things you can look for is length of reply — someone who wants to be understood and have a productive discussion is more likely to explain themselves. Someone who wants to troll isn't engaging in substance to begin with, so they will not have a detailed or direct response to what has been said. They will leave short pointless replies, often filled with snark or some other sarcastic attitude which is generally obvious.

−3

DarkArmillary wrote

So lemme get this straight — your idea of a "good productive conversation" is a bunch of trolls dogpiling the OP (who, granted, could have been more articulate in his position), and an ideologue telling someone they shouldn't use the word "female" in any circumstance. That was the state of the thread when I walked into it.

Then, when someone else (myself in this case) takes the time to present critical rebuttals, and explain theory to hopefully spur a deeper conversation on the topic, according to you that's "inserting" myself. Do you know how conversations work on the internet? I do not need a written invitation. If someone sees something and they want to comment on it, they can. In terms of theory, that's called discourse, and it's crucial to a positive and productive social movement.

Now you're flexing what little authority you have to halt all further conversation and silence discourse, rather than take a measured look at the conversation to see who offered substance and who was just trolling. Oh well, the trolls were trying to derail it themselves, so there wasn't any engaged discourse happening anyway.

−2

DarkArmillary wrote

No I was sincere, I would be patient if you are trying your best. I've know people with learning disabilities. Just have to patient. If that's not the case though, you're just a troll. You're not engaging in "good faith" here so I have no interest in really explaining things to you, things which you could scroll up and read anyway. My suggestion is that you make this day more fruitful for yourself, rather than being a troll all day. You're mostly wasting your own time, you know.

0