LajkaBear OP wrote (edited )

Not to keep you in suspense about how we justify authority:

I’d say humans as a species do decide what is and isn’t just and do have that authority. As it wouldn’t exist without us as it’s subjective.

What justified an authority in my opinion is if it’s consensual, natural, bottom up, or unavoidable to society

And no I’m not a fascist for thinking some hierarchy is okay. I’m simply a realist. We as a people simply determine ourselves what’s wrong or right. That’s just a fact.

And I’m not an Anarchist anymore I found my ideals align more with communalism and libertarian municipalism rather than anarchism. But I’m still willing to work with anarchists.


LajkaBear wrote

With this much emphasis on work (and in an absence of an understanding of how non-governmental hierarchies permeate our societies), I doubt you can actually achieve classlessness and statelessness either.

The idea of anarchy=communism is as absurd as anarchy= liberal democracy because they both share the pursuit of freedom and happiness.


LajkaBear wrote

anarchy is communism in practice

And apparently it's anarchists who always play semantic games...

a stateless, classless, money-less society

The problem is that these three features are barely the tip of an iceberg. Let's talk anti-work for a second, commies, and see where this 'anarchy is communism in practice' takes us. And then let's move onto relational anarchy, veganism, free association, anti-democracy/consensus, etc.

Whaaa, what are you saying commie? You finally agree that anarchy is nothing like communism? GOOD!


LajkaBear wrote

You can just hear that smug nasally drawl -- 'You see, m'lady, there is democracy and Democracy. These are two distinct concepts. Democracy is totally different from the democratically non-democratic democracy because it's democratically DEMOCRATIC. If only people understood that when I say democracy I mean the democratically democratic type of democracy, which is very different from the democratically un-democratic democracy, this world would be dramatically more democratically democratic.'


LajkaBear wrote (edited )

This is just chapter seven unless I am missing something

Go on the website it links to and click on 'full list of audiozines.' Then use the search function for 'the unquiet dead', and you'll get 7 (different) chapters and an introduction.


LajkaBear wrote (edited )

Anarchism = not a single rock placed atop another?

Correct. Anarchism is when all rocks are flying in a perfectly egalitarian, horizontal manner in the general direction of anybody who suggests that anarchism is a statism with a human face or whatever the fuck you are trying to convey with this really shitty metaphor.


LajkaBear wrote (edited )

Am I missing something?

Is this:

For some who were experiencing it for the first time, the General Assembly became a cathartic opportunity to unload long-pent-up polemics. Perhaps never having really had their political voices heard off the Internet, newcomers would interrupt the agenda and turn the people’s mic into a soapbox. With practice, though, that would change. They’d find that hewing to the process was better than making off-topic speeches. They heard stories about the assemblies in occupied squares in Egypt, Greece and Spain firsthand from people who had been there. Helping shape the daily decisions of the Occupation started to seem actually more empowering than trying to tell Obama what to do.

the great anarcho-democratic contribution to 'decision-making processes'??

The anarchists’ way of operating was changing our very idea of what politics could be in the first place. This was exhilarating. Some occupiers told me they wanted to take it home with them, to organize assemblies in their own communities. It’s no accident, therefore, that when occupations spread around the country, the horizontal assemblies spread too.

Lord help us!