celebratedrecluse

celebratedrecluse wrote

Reply to by !deleted24301

Use a diluted concentration of the thinner for better results, perhaps

it may take experimentation, but it looks like it is easily refill able so it good for that

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted23972 in by !deleted23972

Abolishing the state and settler property rights.

It sounds nice, but how on earth can we achieve this in practical terms? The problem with these systems is, you let them survive just a little, and they will reinstate themselves dynamically; it is the nature of colonization. And they are very hard to wipe out, true? I cannot really imagine such a thing occuring without forced removal of settlers; settlers are the consumers which demand colonial governments and property rights, if they do not have these things they will find a way to establish them unless they are completely unable to do so.

How can an anarchist, let alone an anarchist with nihilist affinities, espouse this "give the land back" approach, without endorsing a state to enact such a plan? Even if the problems of ideology are discarded, how would this even occur? There are hundreds of millions of settlers across huge swaths of land.

There is a certain animus toward "worldbuilding" on the board, but what is more ambitious than to build a world without such things?

Decolonizing relationship to land

What does it mean? I could guess, but what do you mean?

More concretely in the short term, there are pretty much always ongoing battles over indigenous land as the state continues to take more of it.

But this is just protecting the land holdings of indigenous people (usually as representated by a "tribal government" "first nation" etc, which is a colonial entity).

While good, this is very different than "giving land back" which would entail having a way to undo ownership of particular lands as well as implying specific people to give it to, in addition to those specific people having rights/ownership over it, either collectively or in the individual/colonial sense, which further has difficulty in reconciling the colonial nature of land ownership as a concept in most places which were colonized by the European.

But also, I think it's nice as a direct challenge to the settler left who ask the question you did.

A recursive discourse which appears to thrive mostly among white people competing to be the least white, no?

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

I would be cautious in supporting or opposing national liberation movements in general. anarchist and other minorities usually do not fare well in them.

For example, Cuba is a good example.

Catalonia's movement, while pluralistic, is championed by their conservatives; it is part of the general nationalist movement in EU, which opposes the capitalist EU government not for anticapitalist reasons but instead for reasons of race and immigration.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Interesting. I can see what is worthwhile for anarchists with preserving paper as a method of payment in comparison to a "cashless society", but it is weird to see people be nostalgic about this and other aspects of a pre-coronavirus world.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Communism is suppose to be that belief system, a secular religion based on materiality and care for others. However, its eschatology makes no sense, and so it can be draining to believe in something which has that level of incoherence and which is compromised with a million snakes trying to manipulate this discourse to their own benefit.

For example, the nominally communist countries in asia, are generally speaking not communist or even socialist, by the common definition of my part of the world. The CPC, for example, has its citizens work for their own healthcare on a market-based model with some subsidies and programs to fill the gaps; the DPRK is a complex place, but the highest level of government is outright ethnonationalist (as a reaction to genocide in the recent past and the threat of foreign occupation, but still obviously this reactionary and is not even leftist let alone communist).

In such a world, where words mean little besides the push and pull of unseen hands, what can the secular woman be? The answer, is probably in some form of liberated wildness like many green anarchist espouse, but I don't know if that satisfies my desires fully.

5