planx wrote

Reply to by nbdy

how is being drunk going?


planx wrote

I don't understand why people are attached to this personal/private category set, it seems rigid and impractical.

To continue your example, my partners and I interchangeably use each other's underwear just depending on what's around and what's easiest. We know 'whose' is whose but there is nothing preventing any of us from using the others'. Who bought it or 'owns' it isn't a particularly relevant category for their use, only practical/pragmatic considerations.


planx OP wrote

Reply to comment by southerntofu in insurrection by planx

Thank you.

Stuff like this is the kind of thing I think it'd be good to have a wiki on here, for easy reference for people.


planx wrote

Reparations and abolishing property are related but not the same

Yes, I have said as much.

If that was true, major arguments from leftists wanting reparations would say they want to abolish property as reparations.

Dissolving property and humanness into the commons is reparations, both including in them a healing process. This is the same as making anarchy, which is the same as decentralising power.

So, it seems odd to say my thoughts on popular reparations strategies are wrong when u have a completely different idea of what reparations should be and disagree with most people who advocate for reparations.

Why would it be odd that I disagree with most people, given that I am an anarchist? There are many types of authoritarians who believe in their own forms of reparation, anarchists will be in the minority, and overtly anarchist ideas on reparation are not so easy to come by.


planx wrote

I've read a lot about reparations but I've never read anything about people desiring to share all their possessions in common.

You don't share freely with people you love and build your life together with?

Of anarchism is abolishing private property in the marxists sense I'm anti anarchism.

Did you mean if? if you meant if, anarchism definitely at minimum abolishes private property. Some anarchists will make a distinction between private and personal property. I think about possession in purely pragmatic terms including relations of various kinds of emotional/spiritual attachment in the considerations.


planx wrote (edited )

Disagreed with most of what you had to say so will just provide a different way to look at it.

Considering reparations to be limited to just cash transfers is similar to how people ask for handouts and call it mutual aid.

Relative amounts of cash isn't the only thing that needs repair. This is a highly limited approach that is in some ways often more close to charity than repair.

There are two directions I want to take this, but I can only do the first now and touch on the second. The first is about how reparations for anarchists is the same as everything for anarchists - based in affinity, and the second is about how the process of reparations is a returning of humanness and property to a state of being in-common.

Like all things anarchists do, their work grows from affinity with others. They will also sometimes do broad-based work that aims to change the atmosphere of a space, but our core work is with those we are in affinity with.

To refer to the classic text, accomplices not allies, those people we have affinity with across hierarchical identity lines can be called our accomplices.

If you're white, you may not have access to most of the political spaces that your accomplices are in, but they recognise your sincerity an built affinity with you over time.

Reparations goes first and foremost to those people, no strings attached. Money to the people you have affinity with is the same as money for your collective vision of liberation. Helping a regular person eat is helping a regular person eat, and maybe you can call it reparations, but reparations is more of a radical attempt to repair.

What does it look like? It looks like removing the relations of property between yourself and those you have affinity with, putting them in-common. It is prefiguring anarchy fully in the relationships you have with those you share affinity with.

It's not just property that has been stolen from the commons though, but also humanness, as a dogmatic idea of humanness, built conflated with whiteness (and other positionalities like cis, man, bourgie, there are many), has created sets of relations that hierarchize all of our societies by measuring people against that dogmatic idea of the human.

So the sets of relationships we are trying to build are revolutionary affinity groups that cross boundaries of positionality and seek to destroy the enclosure of property and humanness from the commons, for a world totally in common.

Somebody I know just recently finished a dissertation about this stuff that I got to proof-read, I'll get them to put it on the anarchist library as soon as I can.


planx wrote (edited )

A few thoughts:

Unless you're a social genius capable of making light and fun of serious and terrible things in perfect balance with the flow of those family/friend social spaces, making your points with such sharpness and eloquence that everybody may grasp them (I'm not, some are), try to accept that you will be a negative nancy in some way. This is one reason we hang out with other anarchic types and not our often-disgusting families etc.

Where possible, try to spend time around people you have affinity with. Those are the people you can build with, those are the people who stand on the same ground as you. You won't always be able to do only be around your affinity people, so it's always good to try to be as sharp at expressing key concepts in ways that more regular folks would understand. I read stuff like CrimethInc to brush up on that. And I pick my battles, I'll only speak at the family table if I can be short and sharp and impactful. They already know I'm a weirdo who hates it all, but if I can shut down some bullshit with three or four well-placed sentences that end on a positive note (everything's garbage so all we have is each other, there are these other people all over the world doing things differently and you can join, etc), I will enjoy that as a kind of craft.

It's also those people you have affinity with that you can build project geared at joyfully smashing that negativity. It makes the dull sad conversations at the family table bearable when you know that later you're gonna go meet up with some people and build your mutual aid network in a space that lets you unleash your potential.

At least that's how I do it. I'm curious to hear what others have to say and if there are any responses to what I've said.


planx wrote

I tend to think of confidence as the first step to being caught doing something overconfidently, so I don't relate to this issue in the same way.

Aside from that, start with smaller, safer lifts and work your way up, I'd say.


planx OP wrote

Do yourselves a solid and make the time to learn about the Beer Hall Puscht (Bürgerbräukeller Puscht) of 1923. Below is a link to a very quick video that offers the basics on this event and it's impact in the years that followed. There are actually a lot of useful videos on this attempted coup and we encourage you to check them out; one shockingly good vid by Rick Steves - yes, the PBS travel guy - is an hour long but worth the viewing.
Avoid the Simple History vid on this topic and really any other topic. They are weirdly anti communist, oversimplify to the point of obscuring facts, make misogynist "jokes" that only Joe Rogan would laugh at, queerphobic, and oddly self promoting. Fuck those guys.