ruin

ruin wrote

Hi Tony. Welcome to raddle. I don’t think you are alone in your view, but thus far your contributions have been painfully close minded, reductionist, and (ironically) reactionary.

Given the parodic nature of your posts, it is unclear to me whether or not you are an actual ancom drunk on the strong liquor of the beautiful idea, or an alt account send up of every embarrassing ancom trope that’s ever graced a Reddit sub.

Either way, I invite you to take a page from /u/celebratedrecluse who like you is a communist, albeit one with a far more nuanced approach to politics and social interaction (and easily one of my favorite users on raddle) and engage in good faith conversation on topics of mutual interest rather than addressing our little online space with poorly conceived polemics and absurdist calls to revolution.

Just a thought.

12

ruin wrote

Reply to 5/18/2021 by subrosa

My reading of Anti-Oedipus is going slow, I don't have anything interesting to say about it yet. I'm a little out of my depth here, to make some more of it I will need plenty of context and secondary readings.

Just keep plugging away and keep an open mind. Much of anarchist writing that is widely encountered tends toward the utilitarian and sociopolitical. AO is a different beast and lends well to an “open” reading. I find a great deal of philosophy is best read as poetry.

4

ruin wrote

I read a fair bit, but it varies day by day. I typically have quite a few texts going at once, all loosely related to my current interest and discussions.

Joining a reading group is the best thing I’ve done recently. Discussion definitely makes my reading more productive and enjoyable. I take part in a weekly group that’s more like a circle of friends having an ongoing conversation and then another that’s more focused in its scope and attempting to be projectual.

6

ruin wrote

Reply to comment by black_fox in Friday Free Talk! by Mirio

I’m still getting used to the platform. The Twitter style of discourse isn’t my comfort zone. I do enjoy the few people I’ve interacted with.

4

ruin wrote

I’m with you. Definitely think more poetic writing, more open writing in general, is more conducive towards anarchic thinking.

I’ve been really scattered lately in my reading. Cioran, Bataille, Barthes, Junger, Serres, Deleuze, and more all while keeping up with reading group(s). Mind’s a bit scattered but in a good way. Like I can pull out my own meaning and process the texts from a less literal and more personal angle. I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking of Laura riding and approaching all of my reading as poetry/fiction.

6

ruin wrote (edited )

Got it.

I should probably stay away from the word liminal in general when addressing dualisms because it’s not precise, and commonly used in @ space.

I like the idea of TAZ, but to describe TAZ is to recuperate it, to contextualize it out of existence.

I might change my mind tomorrow, but yes, I see that type of dualism as a trap. We are where, when we are (using a basic conception of linear time) and will never exist anywhere else. I feel that to delineate is to move towards idealism and on to ideology.

I don’t have answers but I’m interested in destroying value and rationality to create possibilities. I actually love Hakim Bey (PLW) for just this reason. He’s very idiosyncratic and self-contradictory, which aren’t bad things. On the contrary, fear of contradiction is just a lack of imagination, a closed mind longing so much for unity and harmony that it finds it everywhere and recoils from difference.

Apologies for rambling. Not sure that makes sense.

6

ruin wrote

I always enjoy PLW’s critique and thought, but he always seems to be swinging back and forth between embracing the possibility of the liminal and then falling into the trap of before/after, inside/outside dualisms. I guess I feel like that’s where much critique of civ and technology fall apart. That manichean pull is very strong.

7

ruin wrote

I’ve read bits and pieces of this and it’s a worthwhile text for any anarchist that’s interested in deleuze.

Its author is Andrew Culp, organizer of the Quiver project. Despite the academic nature of the project and content, he’s been very open to interventions and just seems like a genuinely cool person from my interactions with him.

5

ruin wrote (edited )

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

You bring up a great point. There is certainly a large emotional component to one’s beliefs and the actions they take.

I consider the exclusively sociopolitical/anthropological bent of most anarchist discourse severely limiting in its analysis and potential for implementation.

While they’re not widely read among @ folks and can be overly academic, there’s some good bits and pieces to pull from post structuralists that have incorporated a psychological aspect in their critique. Assuming we are all rational agents in our daily lives is obviously a delusion best left to economists and social scientists.

4

ruin wrote

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

I think it's a ploy to revive the visage of moral superiority so that post-leftists can say, "Look at me, I'm so ethical!" while maintaining their edgy title of amoralist.

Yes. And it annoys the shit out of me.

We should say outright that people should not decide for others, no wordplay necessary.

Exactly. Most people are ok with this until disagreement arises. Then comes the justifications for why their perspective is more ethical and therefore deserving of imposition on others.

5

ruin wrote

Individualist is too broad for me so I’ll exclude it, but ancaps, mutualists and the like all share the distinction of owing their limited relevancy and scope of discourse to the internet and a small corner of academia. Outside of online spaces, the only anarchists one is likely to engage with are ancoms, and I see ancom as the default ideology associated with anarchism by the general public, at least where I live.

Not saying there aren’t other varieties of “out” anarchists in meat space, but all the agonizing over adjectives seems to happen much less than online. Personally, most people I know (non-anarchists) all identify me as an anarchist, and that’s enough for them and fine with me.

7