aaaaargZombies wrote

I like this, it's like an axis of evil but instead you get...

Axioms of Anarchy!

Not sure what I'd go with. Lets have a bash.

  • People are inherently good and bad.
  • Don't arm your enemies.
  • Society at a scale you wouldn't call a community is unworkable without policing away difference.
  • Laws, even in the most benevolent use, rely on predicting the future. Something people can't do.
  • Borders are a source of immense suffering, states can't exist without them.
  • Prisons are borders internal to the state.
  • Anarchy would not "cure" many problems we have today but it would create an opening in which to address them.
  • Imagination is important.
  • Recuperation is one the greatest threats.

aaaaargZombies wrote

I never think of Nihilism as being in contention with hope, just that it doesn't require it. I tend to read positions that start with hope as a foundation as having a subtle neo-liberalism creeping in. As if the outcome of an action is dependent on an individuals personal emotional state rather than larger systemic forces that are bearing down on us.

In that way moments of hope can be enjoyed as the pleasures they should be and moments of hopelessness can be faced without guilt or shame.


aaaaargZombies wrote (edited )

It's easier to say than do but...

Rather than working on yourself you should think about caring for yourself. If someone was to come and take care of you what would they do that would be most useful in this time?

Likewise, if you were to think about what you would want to do to help someone you really cared about what would that look like?


aaaaargZombies wrote

Reply to I’m ready now by qgos

I see nothing but disaster and disappointment in my future, and my past is covered in shame.

People are notoriously bad at predicting the future. All we can really say is that things will change. I'm sure it's no coincidence you posted this to f/queer, shame is a weapon used against us. There's a reason that we call the celebration of queer existence pride.


aaaaargZombies wrote

It's worse than you fear.

I asked Naveh why Deleuze and Guattari were so popular with the Israeli military. He replied that ‘several of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaux became instrumental for us […] allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have otherwise. It problematized our own paradigms. Most important was the distinction they have pointed out between the concepts of “smooth” and “striated” space [which accordingly reflect] the organizational concepts of the “war machine” and the “state apparatus”. In the IDF we now often use the term “to smooth out space” when we want to refer to operation in a space as if it had no borders. […] Palestinian areas could indeed be thought of as “striated” in the sense that they are enclosed by fences, walls, ditches, roads blocks and so on.’5 When I asked him if moving through walls was part of it, he explained that, ‘In Nablus the IDF understood urban fighting as a spatial problem. [...] Travelling through walls is a simple mechanical solution that connects theory and practice.’6

The Art of War: Deleuze, Guattari, Debord and the Israeli Defense Force


aaaaargZombies wrote

Reply to by DeletedButArchived

Why would I want a servant

If I could upvote this more I would.

I really like communal meals, I don't think I'm alone. The more service orientated the place, the less comfortable I find the experience. I'd love to live in a world with big canteens where you just turn up and grab food, sit down and chat with who ever else is at your table, wash your plate when you leave. Everyone cooks from time to time.


aaaaargZombies wrote

My favorite thing about this was the reviews which they included on the cover.

Commie nutters turn Tintin into a comic yob

– Daily Star

Disgusting – heaven knows what a small child would think if it got hold of this book

– Channel 4

Absolutely terrible…We have a free press but there is a limit to how far it can go

– The Police Federation


aaaaargZombies wrote

However, if these things are packaged into liminal experiences which are contained strategically by the state, and which essentially produce a subculture which can then be commodified by the state and its para-state institutions (markets, online platforms, etc), then this could indeed be a reification of state stability and power, in a roundabout way.

Recuperation is a risk, if not an inevitability, of any counter hegemonic space. No one does dialectics as well as neo-liberals.

In what ways does it contest state power? Because for me, anarchist action and activity is about contesting the state, and reducing its ability to destroy me/deprive all of the sustenance for life or any alternative to itself. To me, anarchy is not really about creating a cool group of people for me to hang out and have fun with, not directly.

I'll caveat this and say that I find myself more and more bringing explicitly leftist thinkers into discussions on raddle because I think they have critiques that often go unanswered in this space even if I don't find myself aligned with their goals.

Mark Fisher's concept of capitalist realism has been very influential on my world view. The idea that capitalism === reality. I think something similar has been expressed in many different ways, perhaps in Aragorn's nihilism or in Desert, which describes an anarchism that does not believe in the possibility of radical social change. Many on the left describe this as the "communist horizon", from different times or places a new world is either very distant, near by, or completely out of reach. Interestingly the essay We Are All Very Anxious on the subject of consciousness raising gets published simultaneously by Crimethinc and Plan C.

I say all this because what your talking about sounds much more materialist. After the recent thread on practical reclamation I was struck by how the post-left completely abandons these questions to the left and to capital. But clearly the left recognizes that improving material conditions is simply not enough.

To me the ideal scenario is one which combines both. Meeting your material needs in ways that are not sanctioned or evade the controls of the state, that prefigures ways of being and relating to others outside of current schemas feels like a possible antidote to capitalist realism.

It does seem a bit vanguardist, at least vaguely reminiscent of the ML entryist practices, but in a uniquely anarchist/decentralized/distributed way. It's peculiar, I think you are right to point that out.

This is not really about tricking people or funneling them into a pipeline of political engagement but rather a recognition that the state will not tolerate such radical experimentation for it's own sake and we are not strong enough to defend ourselves in open conflict.


aaaaargZombies wrote

What is the tactical purpose of seizing empty space?

I think it's not really the space that's important but what people do in it. Andy Robinson makes the point about the summit hopping protests, raves, squatted social centers, etc having previously been spaces where people would experience an alternative reality. That the counter hegemonic nature of such spaces opened up greater possibilities than the material demands could do even if met. ie, experiencing horizontal organizing models and the violence of the state first hand is more radical than slightly fairer taxation policies.

Episode 89 – What is Anarchism in 2018 with Andy

This is a difficult thing to navigate though, publicly declare one thing while aiming to achieve another.