ziq wrote (edited )

What makes you a 'legal' American? Did your ancestors ask the indigenous people permission before moving in, killing them and taking their land?


So would immigrants be rendered 'legal' if they followed in your ancestors' footsteps by killing you to move into your house?


ziq wrote (edited )

I really feel that you're making assumptions about my perspective here.

Your comment that sparked my post was in relation to Chinese electronics but it could just as easily be about veganism or any other choice to not consume certain things. I don't really understand the distinction between avoiding products made by workers in miserable conditions and avoiding meat. They're the same in my mind - An individual's personal choice to not consume the most unethical products.

But my arguments were also addressed to selver's comments in that thread, and comments in a recent f/vegan thread. I think it's all related since it's all the same argument; "there's no ethical consumption so stop caring."

It's not like I'm...defending the Soviet Union's treatment of ethnic minorities?

You're making the same collectivist argument all communists make; that only the collective matters and anything else is a distraction. I couldn't care less about the collective. The collective isn't my master. The collective is just another state, however nicely you package it.

it seems to me like you are not really interested in sharing the struggles of people who are outside of your direct experience or your own individual desires

There's no way we can affect conditions globally politically. We can really only impact our own community. Trying to save the whole world leads to rapid burnout.

But of course I share the struggles of all workers since I'm a worker. And I share the struggles of all indigenous peoples because I'm indigenous. And I share the struggles of all post-colonial people because I'm from a post-colonial place.

All I can do though to show solidarity is choose to avoid supporting e.g. China's abuse of its people by only buying used electronics and keeping them until they stop working. Trying to organize someone else's struggle makes no sense to me - it sorta feels like colonialism. Only they know what their community needs and only they can fight their battles.

Now if you're doing that as a project with other people, that seems way more feasible to me.

I can't force people to pick up a shovel. Very few people are interested in rewilding, finding someone in my area that would share that interest is virtually impossible, especially since it's a sparsely populated island. It would also make no difference - planting a tree takes a few minutes. I can plant as many as I can get my hands on, having more hands wouldn't get me more trees. I posted a link yesterday about an individual who planted millions of trees. This is one of the things you can absolutely do on your own.

It's also a collective endeavor. You aren't gonna do that too easily alone

Think how many trees a single person can plant in their lifetime if they take the initiative. There's no reason me doing it alone should be diminished when future generations will no doubt benefit from my work. It's an individual action with collective consequences that will reverberate for hundreds of years. These ecosystems I rebuild are much more permanent and impactful than e.g. joining a union or a coop.

But if it's a project you are sharing with those other folks, in order to prefigure a desirable goal & solve some immediate community needs, who could really call that lifestyleist?

Not sharing it with anyone. Labor like this is thankless and it always will be. Depending on others to do work that you can easily do yourself is futile. Civilized people expect the state to do everything for them but the state only plants trees on the roadsides around cities where taxpayers can see them. Rural places are left bare or planted with pine monocultures that degrade the land further and create pine deserts.

My actions are absolutely individualist; lifestylist. It shouldn't be a dirty word but collectivists have made it that way.

in order to prefigure a desirable goal

Nope. I'm just rewilding the land because I want to. It will benefit others since desertification has horrible consequences for all life, but that's not prefiguration. I'm not doing it to aid some kind of utopian revolution I'm waiting for.

those in the anarchist scene IRL who have been the most into the vegan idpol tend to be some of the most privileged people in the scenes they inhabit

I think there's a big difference between a liberal vegan an an anarchist vegan, and I think a lot of anarchists are liberals who appropriate anarchist terminology to feel important. I'm a lifelong vegan but I would never identify as a 'veganarchist' or frame my anarchy through my diet. My being vegan is relatively inconsequential to my anarchy and just one of the many, many ways I avoid oppressive constructs. I don't think it's even helpful to refer to these privileged authoritarians as anarchists just because they label themselves as such.

Having seen that happen, I am just very skeptical when people talk about the need to "take responsibility for your choices" in what one consumes

If you don't take responsibility for the harm you do, no one will. There's no rapture-like revolution coming to wipe out capitalism's sins and absolve you of any guilt for your part in it because "no ethical consumption". There's only this life you're living and your choices absolutely matter. They shape who you are and the impact you make on your environment and culture. If you just keep doing harm and blame your actions on capitalism, you're no different than any CEO dumping toxic waste in a river in China. Harm reduction in your community is something you have direct control over. You can choose to not dump that waste. Or you can dump it and justify it to yourself by saying "it's okay because capitalism did it".

Killing human children for pleasure is something no anarchist would support, but somehow when it comes to killing other animals for pleasure, it gets justified as just being "consumption". The entire "no ethical consumption" argument is just an excuse to justify oppression that "anarchists" want to keep engaging in for deeply selfish reasons.

Which of us is the true individualist? Me caring about all life and my effect on everything I come into contact with, or the "collectivist" who laughs at vegans for being "lifestylists" and chows down on a leg of lamb and orders a new iphone, a new macbook pro, a new ipad and a new apple watch from Amazon and a bunch of disposable furniture from Ikea while parroting the "no ethical consumption" catchphrase?

It's a scapegoat, same as the word "lifestylism" and the notion that any anarchist that works alone on anything is a liberal. Some of us will always be alone, surrounded by a sea of apathetic bootlickers. That's no reason to disparage us or the work we do.

Reply to comment by /u/surreal in Friday Free Talk by /u/ThreadBot


ziq wrote

Been doing it for 13 years. Only gets harder with time. I learned to bombard my mind with happy thoughts to get through it. Like a drug I can release in my brain on command.


ziq wrote (edited )

Practically speaking, this ideology creates in-groups and out-groups.

Personal choices and actions isn't an ideology. Ideology creates in groups and out groups. This is just people being people.

Is that the goal here? To shame others for their consumption? To celebrate others for their lack of it?

No, being a vegan or a dumpster diver or a forager or a self-sufficient farmer has nothing to do with punishing other people. It's simply the way someone chooses to live their life for a multitude of reasons - both ethical and for the pursuit of the happiness that every human desires.

An individual anarchist's decision to live more ethically is not some kind of circlejerk the way you imagine it. All anarchists have different motivations and different ethics. We live in this world and we can't just pretend there's some grand global monogenous revolution around the corner that's going to save us. We can either choose to take action to resist the violent system on an individual and on a local level or we can live and die waiting for the system to go away worldwide while participating in it fully and thus increasing its growth.

Is that how one builds a collective movement for revolutionary purposes?

No. It's got nothing to do with a collective revolution. Me being a vegan who lives off the land is about me. There's nothing stopping someone from making personal ethics-based choices in their life and also organising collective action. But they'd be sorely disappointed if they thought global collective revolution were attainable.

We can't see 7 billion people that have wildly different ideas of what life should be as one entity because they're not one entity. Collectivising them as one group in our minds makes no logical sense.

People from different places have different needs. Marxism deals with this by seperating people into classes and telling us to only concern ourselves with the worker classes and to hell with the peasant classes and land-owner classes. This is a recipe for colonialism and genocide and it's far more out-group-forming than individuals who avoid consuming and live deliberately; apart from the system.

Constructing a homogenous group; a worker collective, and telling them they need to kill everyone outside their group so they can seize power and take an equal share of industry's spoils is not something that has ever led to anything good. It gave us the Soviet Kazakh genocide, the Chinese great leap forward genocide, the Soviet Holodomor genocide, etc. And it ultimately gave us collectivist capitalism like we see now in China - the most destructive form of capitalism there is.

Communism creates as big an in group / out group divide as capitalism. The power just shifts to the producers rather than the owners. And its just as brutal in its treatment of the out-groups. Anyone that doesn't want to be part of the industrial system, like the Kazakh nomadic herders, is basically fucked. You dissent, you die.

Communism views the entire world through a Western industrial worker-serf lense. But the whole world isn't organized like the industrial West.

Indigenous farmers in post-colonized places are treated as pariahs; 'kulaks', and murdered for having 'owned' the ancestral land they sustain themselves with under capitalist definitions. Just because the poor in industrialised capitalist nations don't own the land they work, doesn't mean the poor in other parts of the world where there is no lord-serf system in place are bad.

A garden that you and your family / tribe tend to and depend on to survive is personal property, but communism has always treated it like private property. Like producing your own food is reactionary. The USSR even banned people from planting gardens at home so they'd be forced to depend on the collective for food.

Nomadic herders and roaming hunter-gatherers are likewise criminalised and starved out because there can be no room for people that don't submit to the industrial work system under communism. They're grouped as "individualists" and punished for resisting collectivisation.

These aren't things that serve my interests as an indigenous substinence farmer and forager. This collective you want me to embrace would be the death of me.

is this sociality actually getting us where we want to go?

Your needs aren't my needs. I don't want to go where you want to take me. My lifestyle and my ancestors' lifestyle is nothing like yours and we shouldn't be treated as one homogenous entity just because we're both poor.

My argument isn't about waiting for a revolution, this is about making one, same as you. To do that, we have to have positive relationships with others

Setting up living, breathing alternatives to the industrial system like self-sufficient food forests does this better than unionism and other workerist pursuits that only further ingrain us in the system and make us dependent on it. And then if we do manage a revolution, we just reproduce the capitalist system again because it's all we know.

The only revolution I'm interested in is one that removes dependence on artificial manmade structures. I want to be liberated from the system, not become the system.

direct action, protests

I agree that protests aren't direct action. Protesting is just another cog in the democracy machine. The illusion of choice.

Once again, I am a vegan, I organize collectively, I go to actions, I am similar to many of the people on this forum in terms of the practical application. I'm all about that political harm reduction. But it is ridiculous to assume this is how social & culture transformation happens.

This whole debate started because someone asked if we should avoid consuming things built by workers who are especially exploited - I guess because it's more ethical to buy locally produced things where workplace health and safety standards are adhered to and more environmental regulations exist. I don't think anyone in the thread suggested buying local products instead of Chinese imports would transform the culture. But planting food forests and building other "lifestylist" alternatives to capitalism can.

Reply to comment by /u/Tequila_Wolf in Collapse and Posadism? by /u/rot


ziq wrote (edited )

Posadists literally want to nuke the planet to "save" it from humans.


Posadists gained notoriety on the left for their unorthodox views regarding nuclear war. They believed that nuclear war was not only likely, but also desirable. For nuclear war was the supreme opportunity for the forces of world revolution.[14] A devastating nuclear winter would represent ‘the final settlements of accounts of Socialism against the capitalist system’.[3]

At the first congress of their International Posadas announced: ‘Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on earth. But it will not impede communism’.[3]

Posadas expanded on his views of nuclear war in a number of pamphlets but never strayed from his view that one was both likely and necessary, writing,

“”‘Nuclear war equals revolutionary war. It will damage humanity but it will not – it cannot – destroy the level of consciousness reached by it. Humanity will quickly pass through nuclear war into a new human society.....after the destruction commences the masses are going to emerge in all countries – in a short time, in a few hours.’[3]

Not content to merely make statements about the necessary price to pay for socialism that would shock Eric Hobsbawm, Posadas and his followers actively pushed to make nuclear war a reality. Posadist papers were known for their appeals to the Soviet Union and China to make a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States.


ziq wrote

Anticiv is a critique of the coercive construct of civilization. It's about advocating for anarchy without compromise and recognizes that civilization is the ultimate authority that drives all archy. It doesn't hold apocalyptic desires just because it recognises the mass destruction that civilization is responsible for. Civilization is about waiting for the end of the world. Anticiv is the yearning for a better world beyond apocalyptic civilization.