RadicalConstructivist

RadicalConstructivist wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by anarchofoss in Morality Vs. Ethics by ziq

it sounds more like consequentialism, the belief that the ethical value of an action is based solely on its consequences. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that says that a good or ethical consequence is one that maximises wellbeing or utility for everyone

2

RadicalConstructivist wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Archists, Anarchists and Egoists by Mirio

perhaps ask the OP if youre curious enough of their intentions behind sharing? I personally dont care either way.

This isn't about intent

I also dont care enough to put more effort into this if what Im met with is a bad faith slippery slope to fascism argument.

The point is there is obviously a line somewhere. So

if you have an argument against the piece, lay it out. otherwise, it simply comes across as: "this is bad, why is this here!? no bad things should be here."

is a weak point unless you also think fascists should be platformed here. The author of this piece praised Might is Right as "a case for “social darwinism” that is one of the frankest and most powerful I have ever seen", and it is effectively making the case for some sort of egoist social darwinism coming from a blatantly far-right worldview. So asking why the fuck so many people here apparently saw value in it seems like a perfectly valid thing to ask. So far I've not seen any reason to believe it has any value other than "know thy enemy"

−2

RadicalConstructivist wrote

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Archists, Anarchists and Egoists by Mirio

exactly the criticism I think it worth paying attention to, for either the collectivist revolutionaries interested in anarchist society building being critiqued, or individualist insurrectionaries also critical, but perhaps not entirely on board with the Marsden/Parker egoist-but-not-anarchist criticism:

go on, why do you think that criticism has value? Seems about as worthwhile to me as Engels' "On Authority", if not less so as it's just a step away from some Hobbesian war of all against all.

again (though it should go without saying), someone posting something ≠ promotion or agreement of it

What would you call sharing something on a public platform, with no context attached, so that more people see it? Does someone have to explicitly say "I endorse this" for it to be promotion?

if you have an argument against the piece, lay it out. otherwise, it simply comes across as: "this is bad, why is this here!? no bad things should be here."

lol ok guess we should all start posting evola and platforming other fascists. Ragnar Redbeard raises a good point, amirite? Let's post raw excerpts from the turner diaries. How about these "national anarchists"?

−2

RadicalConstructivist wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Archists, Anarchists and Egoists by Mirio

I use up/down votes not to indicate whether or not I agree with an argument, perspective, and/or intent of a post, but instead if I think its worth paying attention to

Ok but what is "worth paying attention to" about a borderline social darwinist rejection of anarchism that argues not being able to dominate others is oppressive?

I think their criticism of collectivist anarchism as idealist humanism (often christian influenced socialism in disguise), still rings true.

What criticism is that exactly? All of it is intertwined with all the "anti-authoritarianism is the real authoritarianism" shite.

where it doesnt I think is their use of domination synonymously with power (or violent force): is there a non-dominant use of power? a non-violent use of force? a non-dominant use of violence? these are the provocations raised by the piece, and worth thinking about.

Which is ... basically all of it. If those are questions worth thinking about why not ask them instead of promoting a piece from a Ragnar Redbeard fanboy that doesn't really do that?

0

RadicalConstructivist wrote

If one person is a great speaker, able to inspire lots of folks with their knowledge and the ways they express it, they will gain respect, and thus will rise above others in the social hierarchy. This is all cool and healthy, as long as the speaker is doing what they're doing out of free will, while the listeners listen freely, because they feel they're gaining something of value.

What social hierarchy is that? Seems off to describe something as basic as having respect for someone as hierarchical

1

RadicalConstructivist wrote

Yea, the whole thing seems to be constructed in such a way to give the impression that radicals simply haven't thought these things through, and are simply ignorant of the wonders of liberal ideology (while giving the appearance of being anti-ideology) - encouraging readers (for which ironically the reverse is likely true) to treat radical positions as something to dismiss out of hand rather than well-thought out critique worthy of reflective engagement with.

The first comment is very telling: 'It doesn’t seem to occur to “anarchists”, that excluding capitalism necessitates government.' Ah shit mate, I hadn't thought of that. Better pack my things and praise the state.

5

RadicalConstructivist wrote

To be honest, this wasn't as bad as I thought it might be. However, I think its core problem is that it frequently uses conservative ideological assumptions to criticise the outcomes of radical's behaviour, without properly addressing the reason they engage in that type of behaviour in the first place. Like when they criticise radical methods of accountability/justice on the basis that "not going through the police and prison system is a recipe for injustice that satisfies no-one". The author simply uses the conservative assumption that the authorities must be involved to deliver "proper justice" without engaging with the radical's criticism of that assumption.

Nearly every criticism they make is like this, they almost have a good point until they reveal they've drenched their point in shitty liberal assumptions and ideology, then proceed to claim that "no worldview maps reality perfectly" and, with no hint of irony, "radicals should learn to abandon false truths [...] and to learn the wisdom of different perspectives" before implying that liberalism is the one true way forward.

5