SomeIconoclast

SomeIconoclast wrote

On campus I see people everyday. Each interaction is one of necessity and very terse, many times they're non-verbal. When I first got here 3 years ago, everyone seemed to already have friends or uninterested in meeting new people. I don't even speak to my roommates (they're all shitty people for various different reasons, so I'm not missing out on much, but still) and I don't attend any of the social events hosted here because of my aversion to initiating social interaction and I know for a fact that most of my attendance would be me just awkwardly sitting by myself wondering why the fuck I even bothered trying and how forced everything feels. I don't know how one starts a conversation with a complete stranger and manages to forge a lasting relationship from that.

TL;DR I'm socially inept and have been alone in a crowd for about 3 years now and it's awful. My life has been: go to class, do work, and fuck around on the internet waiting for something to do and it's just awful.

3

SomeIconoclast wrote

I’m an anarcho-communist and have been such for about a month but have been a leftist for over a year.

And therein lies the problem.

Most anarchists would agree that even under anarch there would still be a military. It would be fundamentally different, but there would be a military.

This probably isn't wrong, most people identifying as anarchists seem to think that most of the world's current structures would function the same and that the main problems of the world are capitalism nation-states (they're both huge problems, but it hardly ends with them).

I don’t want to join to support the militaries often imperialist actions. I do know and accept the fact that once I do join I will have to follow the orders given to me wether I agree with them or not. I have already accepted that as an inherent con in this plan for my future self. I do want to join however to protect my family, community, and beyond from any potential threats.

There's no way that this post is genuine. But then again...

I’m an anarcho-communist and have been such for about a month but have been a leftist for over a year.

It just might be.

But beyond that I need to join the military for me. I need the structure and the discipline.

"I know imperialism is bad, but just think of how much better a person I would be with my military fatigues soaked in the blood of brown children."

4

Reply to Friday Free Talk by vMU9

SomeIconoclast wrote

First time in two years that I actually get to spend my birthday at home instead of on campus, the internet has been off since mid December, and I go back to college in a few days.

I guess I'm alright; didn't really consider how little time I have until I go back to taking classes, so...fuck.

9

SomeIconoclast wrote

I used to prefer dogs when I was a kid; I also disliked cats for no real reason. The 2nd cat that my mom ever introduced me to was so goddamn quirky that loved him and we still speak of him fondly. He ran away; good for him in hindsight. A few years after, we adopted a stray that followed another family's cat to their home; she pretty much became "my" cat (eurgh) when it became evident that she prefered me to anyone else. A few years later, she got pregnant when she snuck out; we kept one of the kittens; he grew up; and they both ran away when my mom left the door open. I miss them terribly. Now I prefer cats, but can't really think of a way to live near one because I've developed a distaste for domestication.

3

Reply to comment by SomeIconoclast in Friday Free Talk by vMU9

SomeIconoclast wrote

Absurdism is the embracing of the absurd; the conflict between the human desire to find meaning or inherent value in life and the inability to find any. Absurdists are lukewarm to the possibility to the existence of value or meaning; if it exists, then humans can't really find it; unlike existentialists, who value the self's ability to define meaning and nihilists, who reject the concept entirely. Absurdism is seperate from existentialism and nihilism; coming to the conclusion that seeking meaning and value in life can be fulfilling, but one must also acknowledge that it is absurd to do so and that this search for meaning is more of an existential rebellion than any sort of existentialist search for meaning.

6

SomeIconoclast wrote

Between the Neoliberal Democrats and the increasingly openly fascist Republicans, I'm not entirely sure if that talking point is even remotely true. Assuming that every individual vote does matter (it doesn't); gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other means of manipulating the electoral system exist and the only solution that these people can put together is to waste time attempting to reform a broken system by using the broken system. I find it interesting that this talking point discusses the conditions of marginalized people of my country; I'm pretty sure anyone I vote for has no problem with brutalizing the same people that these electoralists claim to want to protect; whether it's through drone strikes overseas or domestically through police brutality.

5

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

As I've mentioned in the first post, I believe that there are two types of anarchists: supporters of anarchism and supporters of anarchy. Both of these types have subcategories with different ideas on how their goals are achieved and what their goals are; a few of these groups can overlap and participate in cooperation with relatively little friction and a few of them are incompatible to the point where infighting is inevitable. Anarchists are a stubborn bunch. The question of whether or not one should work with other anarchists hinges entirely on what one's goal, and therefore tendency, is: are you a syndicalist? You probably won't be able to work with a group of green anarchists and vice-versa. Are you focused on feminist/trans/queer/poc issues? Maybe that group of mostly straight, white dudes who primarily talk about class issues would help; not a coin I'd flip, though. Sometimes incompatible groups are all one can find; other times, you can't even find other anarchists and you'd have to end up working on projects with leftists; post-leftists have little to no reason to do this, but I'm veering off topic; this is about working with anarchists. Or, rather, the reasons for why one thinks that they shouldn't do so. But assuming proximity, social anxiety, incompatibility, and the various possibilities of ineffectiveness aren't problems, there aren't any reasons for why one shouldn't work with other anarchists that I can think of.

Sorry I hadn't posted this earlier, my internet has been down for a few days and I just got access to a hotspot. It's still down.

1

SomeIconoclast wrote

Though I personally find the idea alluring, there are quite a few valid criticisms to be thrown at attempting to implement anarchy on one's own; the first being one of actual effectiveness: even after one has set off to destroy whatever forms of authority and hierarchy exist within their life, the absolute best case scenario is that they don't fail to do so and even inspire others to take the similar actions; but even under this, the best possible outcome, the reality is that the very same systems that drove this one anarchist to their solitary rebellion remain functional; with only one less person under their thumb. The second criticism is one of longevity: the lifespan of a single anarchist is directly proportional to how long this minute bubble of autonomy will last and while it was possible to create a singular instance of anarchy by oneself, it was ultimately outlived by a much larger, older system of oppression. Of course, these critiques were made with the assumption that one has the option to find other anarchists to work with, that one found anarchists to work with, and that this group of anarchists would be effective in their efforts, and that this group would exist longer than a few years. There is something to be said about joining a dysfunctional group of anarchists that argue about ideological differences to the point of being indistinguishable from a debate club: don't fucking do it; I certainly won't fault you for going it alone, you tried and it didn't work out. This brings me back to the first point:

why one shouldn't work with anarchists

2

SomeIconoclast wrote

Anarcho-Marxism

The ideology for when you want a libertarian worker state that isn't a state that allows you to use gendered slurs because the British working class normalized it or some shit. Also, post-leftists are shot on sight and anyone that demonstrates any level of nihilism is placed into the Revolutionary Reeducation Center.

6

SomeIconoclast wrote

I've given my reasons already, and I'm essentially just going to be playing devil's advocate in favor of the following points:

why one shouldn't work with anarchists, or why anarchists would be unnecessary to the implementation of...anarchy.

For the sake of making sure that the term "anarchist" is defined for all my points of arguments, I'll be using "anarchists" as an umbrella term to refer to those who identify with any of the tendencies listed here.

From the responses that spurred this discussion, most of us don't meet up with other anarchists due to either social anxiety or the fact that anarchists seem to be spread out in terms of proximity. Should this stop each individual anarchist from attempting to find others and collaborate with them? Probably not. Will it? Well, that's dependent on a variety of factors. Still, if they don't find anyone, this doesn't mean that they should give up or that it's impossible to implement anarchy within their lives. Which brings me to the second point: Are other anarchists necessary to the implementation of anarchy?

The answer depends on how one defines anarchy and if that definition is different from how they define anarchism. My definition of anarchy (and the one I'll be using for this argument) is the rejection and opposition of authority and hierarchy in any and all forms. And I define anarchism as the political ideology dedicated to the abolition of both the state and capitalism. Anarchists are simply people who fall into one or both of the above. With these definitions laid out, I can say that other anarchists are not necessary to the implementation anarchy; they are, however, necessary to implement anarchism.

I'm not done here, but writing long blocks of text without a break is a mentally draining process for me.

7

SomeIconoclast wrote

You're a lot more of an optimist than I!

My argument was grounded in more cynicism than anything else; nothing optimistic about the status quo reasserting itself. I believe that corporations co-opting anti-fascism isn't impossible, just highly unlikely.

Hijacking and obscuring the original intent and definition of any threat to industry is obviously a much preferable method. Things like pink and green -washing are examples of institutions exploiting the ambiguity of ideas and terms that the environmentalist and queer liberation movements present. Institutions are then able to redefine these ambiguities, and I see no reason why anti-fascism won't/can't just be co-opted by capital in the same way that all my examples have been.

That's a great argument, actually! I guess I can't (or couldn't) really see anti-fascism defined as anything else; failing to account for the fact that corporations have the power to shift narratives and definitions to their favor. It just struck me as a bit odd, there's a huge difference between a corporation selling anti-fascist merchandise and actually acting against fascism. The latter is an entirely alien scenario to me, but I won't deny that it could happen.

3

SomeIconoclast wrote

I'm curious about peoples' critiques of: why one shouldn't work with anarchists, or why anarchists would be unnecessary to the implementation of...anarchy.

I could make an attempt at arguing for these points if you're still interested. I can't promise to be good at it, but I have a few reasons in mind for why someone would come to those conclusions.

5

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

If anti-fascist policies gain popularity within industry it is inevitably going to centralize power and disarm grassroots movements.

I don't think you'll have to worry about anti-fascist policies becoming popular in industry. Corporations are an inherently liberal construct; they'll only be about as pro or anti fascist as liberalism would allow. Airbnb permitting white supremacists to use their services would be a PR nightmare, so in order to protect their profits and reputation, they cut them off. Don't think of this as anti-fascism, think of it liberalism upholding a status quo that it benefits from.

4

SomeIconoclast wrote

Surely you don't think "ancaps" are anarchists? They're capitalists, aren't they? Isn't it reifying their position to validate them as anarchists? That's why I don't do that, personally.

No. But they think they are and they call themselves anarchists. All the time. And nothing would stop them from labeling their meetups as anarchist. And we can't really stop them from doing so.

I'm curious why another anarchist would come to the conclusion that it's better to be skeptical of anyone under that heading, instead of taking it on a case by case basis, because that's just so contradictory to my point of view and I find that interesting.

If you're talking about me, it's because I just don't trust easily. If you want a reason for that conclusion, just chalk it up to my personality, feelings, and experiences finding it justified. If you're talking about anyone else, I can't answer for them.

But I don't think you are really engaging, you're bringing up people of entirely different ideological camps.

Okay. I think I can see why you view this the way you do. To further clarify, I'm not opposed to working with "actual" anarchists at all.

4

SomeIconoclast wrote

You can't do anarchism entirely alone

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. One of Dionysus' responses was that anyone can call themselves an anarchist, even when they uphold beliefs that contradict anarchism, which is true and happens often. Which is one of the reasons why the idea of meeting up with a group of people calling themselves anarchists makes me suspicious. I can probably work with red anarchists, but ancaps are inherently my opposition.

3