LostYonder

3

LostYonder wrote

Yes, so very true. But isn't there also symbolic value in such acts? Reminding others of the possibilities? Plus making accountable those who most egregiously destroy the lives of so many others in their unbridled pursuit of wealth and power???

The security/private property/capitalist--liberal--state harshly punishes those who dare to articulate and aspire to alternative futures, why not also make them accountable for their true crimes against an unlivable present and future?

5

LostYonder wrote

Taking out the "would YOU do it" question, it is actually an intriguing, if not for purely mental exercise, issue. What role does assassination of political and economic leaders play in bringing about structural transformations to the state that advance anarchist aspirations???

Knowing the state will respond by deepening its security apparatuses and will crack down heavily on self-identified anarchists as retaliation in order to protect the "common good" (sarcasm!), are assassinations productive?

In the US at least, most such assassinations are of liberal leaders -- the Kennedy brothers, MLK Jr., Malcolm X, and many others. Rarely are the conservative/fascist leaders assassinated. Why is that? Does only the right participate in such violence here? Or is it that the state is so strong and deep that it only allows violence against certain individuals in order to protect itself, thus leftists are more likely to be killed?

In hindsight, it is quite amazing in fact that BHO was not assassinated! Though I assume that is because his "progressive" credentials were a facade to begin with...

3

LostYonder wrote

pdfs of some of the chapters of Seeing Like a State are available online.

For those who uncritically assume technology, advancement, modernity are positive Scott is a good starting point. If one is already skeptical and critical of "progress" as mapped out by the west, then his arguments may fall a little flat, but always a good reminder of what we have actually sacrificed in the name of progress.

4

LostYonder wrote

I was going to recommend James Scott's Seeing Like a State and Against The Grain - but they aren't short. A chapter from them no doubt would be a good place to start, though perhaps not radical enough. I'm sure he has some articles that cover his basic arguments as well...

6

LostYonder wrote

I would say it is not being dependent on anyone "outside" (where the borders are drawn is of course highly subjective). It is not the same as being secluded - there can still be relations, interactions, exchanges with others, it just isn't being dependent on those relationships for one's own survival or decision making (be it an individual, a local community, or a larger socio-political entity).

In regards to decision making, being autonomous doesn't imply, for me, assuming one is in a vacuum, but rather recognizing relationships, inter-dependencies, causes-and-effects, rippling impacts, etc.

Autonomy comes with a degree of responsibility in respecting the autonomy of others.

Interesting question...

3

LostYonder wrote

Eduardo Galeano

“I don't believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.”

“The walls are the publishers of the poor.”

Frantz Fanon

“The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.”

Audre Lorde

"For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support."

Paolo Freire

“Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people--they manipulate them."

“Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ”

0

LostYonder wrote

My guess is that his job description is not to protect the kids but rather to monitor and police them, make sure they are inline with the demands of the school institution.

Also, I doubt he was particularly well paid for the job. It is a scum job, like so many out there; to fault him and call his act disgusting fails to engage the systemic failures of our society in actually caring for and educating our children.

3

LostYonder wrote

While your general argument is worthy, your construction of "moderate" (i.e. "good" Muslims) and "extremist" (i.e. "bad" Muslims - Wahhabis) is extremely problematic and simplistic.

First, read Mahmood Mamdani's "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" where he exposes what he calls "culture talk" about Islam and Muslims.

Second, by implying that Wahhabi ideology is behind all Islamic terrorist activity is pretty far out there for someone on a radical, anarchist board. Are you implying that the sole driving force of violence is the ideological beliefs of the perpetrators? That history, economies, and global geo-politics has nothing to do with it? That individuals are not drawn to particular extremist ideologies in light of prevailing social conditions and underlying structures of power?

Why do we constantly reduce Muslims to behave solely by their interpretation of Islam and not see them as individuals, as social beings, as political actors? Do they not have any agency beyond just being Muslim (whether "good" or "bad" Muslims)???

6

LostYonder wrote

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, there is Judith Butler, Gender Trouble. A little more accessible, though controversial, is Michael Warner's The Trouble with Normal. From feminist theory I always liked Jacqui Alexander's Pedagogies of Crossing - a good, easy read, maybe even more 'chill' than most. For some thought-provoking essays try The Feminist Utopia Project, short essays from a diversity of scholars, activists, artists, and others on imagining new possibilities...

3

LostYonder wrote

Ultimately, what defines an act as anarchist praxis is intention. Graffiti, for example, a la Banksy and many others, is praxis, however, done just to doodle or by gang members to mark territory, etc., though informal disruptions to the police state, are not praxis per se. Same with illegalism, sex work, and education. Most of it can be seen as disruptive acts, but I see praxis as having a particular intentionality, a vision of correcting what is wrong rather than just a self-centered act.

graffiti

unlicensed sidewalk vendors

having a picnic in a public park for some homeless people

a lot of sex work, street walking

everyday acts of kindness, giving, and care

teaching in a prison

2

LostYonder wrote

While I think it is important to resist the hegemony of American corporations - in all fields, not just tech - one also has to take into consideration that it is not all done as a mode of "decolonization". India's ruling regime is fascist to its core, deeply nationalistic, and extremely violent towards all kinds of minorities. Their assertion of "national companies" isn't just resistance to American corporate hegemony, but also an assertion of fascist oppression. Many of the companies that can counter the tech bigwigs in India bankroll the current fascist regime...

2

LostYonder wrote

It's a tough question actually. While one would like to think that people have the capacity to ultimately see one another as human beings, most of us are too corrupted/blinded by your ideologies of identities, differences, and individuated senses of security and well being.

On one hand social media has been a powerful tool of documenting and calling out those who do abuse. But the state is deeply entrenched in protecting its own, that even documenting murder by cops goes unpunished.

Does a threatening counter presence, such as the Black Panthers, have the impact needed? But they would never be able to protect all minorities in all different situations.

Maybe one could develop an app, like a kind of panic button, that would go out to everyone in the area who could rush to a scene when something starts to unfold...