Majrelende

3

Majrelende wrote

As a nonbinary person, I would love to exist without having to worry about people not giving people like me the basic right to define oneself. Luckily, most people I know have been accepting with it, but there are some exceptions.

I personally feel that gender is far too prevalent in society, and this creates an environment in which transgender people (and even LGBTQIA+ people in general) suffer from frivolous evils which manifest themselves through relations in society. While gender and transgender issues are a great problem in our current society, much of this is caused by the social separation of gender; if society stopped recognising it, many issues would go away, as the causes of them would be gone. This is not to say that we should not respect LGBTQIA+ people. While gender may be socially nonexistent, people will still need respect based on their choices. For example, if someone needs hormones, they will take them, as nothing in an anarchist society should prevent them from doing what they need to do.

Furthermore, it seems that a genderless society would give transgender people more freedom, as they would not need to make changes as drastic as they would in a gendered society, and any changes they would make would go much more smoothly, as there would be no assumptions or pseudo-permanent identities to deal with during transition; as you were saying, in a society following the spirit of anarchism, people should be able to do and wear what they would like, regardless of its (previous?) gender connotations.

Talking about gender can be very confusing, as no one, in my understanding, actually knows exactly what it is, even if some people purport to. When we stop looking at it, it seems to stop existing, but when we look at it, it starts to become very real. Despite all of this, the thing we can know is that the problems created by it do have solutions, even if the solution appears to be like moving a hill.

2

Majrelende wrote (edited )

In my personal vision, the first stage of a revolution should include the organisation of an alternative socialist economy, especially in rural areas, as they would be able to produce food, and can include disregard for law both to organise a socialist economy and for its own sake. This first stage should also include squatting movements and other forms of rebellion in the cities and towns, which could be supported by the rural socialists. The second stage starts when the state decides to act on this problem against the permission of the people, as it may be useful if the state is that which acts first; the anarchist movement could attract more sympathy than if it had been the one to act against the state. Here in the second stage, the expropriation and action against the state, rather than disregard of it, would occur, as the state is trying to interfere with the way of life of the people. Once this stage starts, I imagine the first thing revolutionaries should do is to disconnect government buildings from electricity, internet, and phone. Finally, my view on violence is that no one should be killed or maimed during the revolution, but minor violence is acceptable but not ideal in defence of people or the revolution if there is a real threat of death or maiming.

4

Majrelende wrote

It depends on where the field is. For example, in the town where I live, it would be risky to squat a field directly next to the road, but there are usually no police here, so unless someone found them and thought these people were threatening, they would be mostly safe. Even then, a forest would be preferable to a field, at least to squat temporarily, as many places within them can be far from any road, making it difficult for the police to find the squat, especially if they are not even in the town in the first place.

4

Majrelende wrote (edited )

We must not allow anarchism to be alienated from the working class. If we threaten capitalism without enough support, we will be smeared, and these smear campaigns will be believed widely. Even then, many people would be horrified if they saw what seemed like meaningless “violence”, so it is essential to give our efforts a respectable light. Without this, our action will only be criminalised and hated. Of course, it will be criminalised anyways, but it would be viewed as just, and this would cause anarchists to be viewed as opponents rather than upholders of a peaceful society. In conclusion, we must think before acting, not covering our eyes opaque terror. This only brings a healthy earth farther and farther into the future, to say the least.