ziq

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

I have no plan. I'm powerless to stop it. You're powerless to stop it. The mass extinction event has already happened and we're all just waiting for the tidal wave we created to hit us. You can pretend you have the power to push a tidal wave back if you want, but I'm not spending the little time I have left lying to myself and pretending Superman will swoop down and save us at the last minute because socialism.

1

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote (edited )

The terms left and right only exist to keep the people living under statism thinking they have choice. That the state can be molded to suit their economic and social ideals. In reality, the state couldn't care less whether you identity as left or right. It's all just misdirect to get you to play the game by the state's rules. Rules that ensure you can never gain any traction if your goal is to dismantle the state.

the terms just generally denote some form of political inclination

Yes. A political inclination positioned firmly within the state apparatus. The illusion of choice.

3

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

How's that revolution working out for you? Making progress installing that socialist society?

Seriously, what will you do with this capitalist system

I have no power to do anything with it. I'm not that big of a narcissist to imagine I can envoke "socialist society" on the world or to even imagine that "socialist society" would somehow reverse the doom we've wrought on our one and only habitat.

Worker managed factories won't save you.

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

I do, however, think that the philosophy has some of its beginings in The International Workingmen's Association

Anarchy existed long before European scholars decided to yearn for it. All they did was advocate for a return to it.

Are you suggesting that an appeal to history is an appeal to an authority?

It is when you view history with such Eurocentricism. Anarchist cultures have been around for millennia. Anarchy wasn't invented by 19th and 20th century European men. European society doesn't have ownership over the struggle for anarchy. The International Workingmen's Association was far removed from anarchy's beginnings.

Anarchy isn't something that was invented with the advent of industrial civilization - it was something that industrial civilization stripped from us.

so I do tend to see Anarchism as being a somewhat exclusively left-wing school of thought

Well you don't even think anarchism should be called anarchism because you think 'libertarian socialism' is more descriptive, so it's not surprising that you'd reject anarchist currents that don't revolve around industrial workerism.

I just simply think that libertarian Socialism just simply is what Anarchism is.

Not to me or any anarchist I care about.

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

Why should a dead white rich European man be granted authority over the definition of anarchy? Wouldn't it make more sense to untether anarchy from the grasp of Eurocentrism? To decolonize it and refute its forced attachment to industrial colonialist European civilization?

the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production.

Notice how centered he is on European civilization? Why should the rest of the world be expected to see anarchy through this dead prince's eyes?

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

You're kind of making an appeal to authority argument though which makes little sense in an anarchist context. History be damned, anarchy isn't owned by the European left.

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

I tend to see Anarchism as historically being a political philosophy that is inextriably tied to the Left. I don't really like the Left, but, I do think that that is the case.

Because "the left" says so? Anarchy is simply the struggle against authority. If people want to attach ideology and mythology to it, they can, but that doesn't give them ownership over the struggle against authority which has been fought since before Homo sapiens even existed.

The left is an invention of liberalism, it has no real value as an anarchist concept since it's just another function of the state apparatus.

What do you mean by the Holocene extinction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

What about those of us who don't advocate for revolution at all because we realize it's a carrot on a stick?

2

Reply to comment by ziq in by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

Proudhon is dead. Anarchy preceded his ideas and anarchy exceeded his ideas.

3

Reply to by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

You're really not talking about anarchism though, you're talking about communism. Anarchism is specifically the struggle against authority - all authority. Not just the capitalist mode of production.

Anarchism can effectively be summarized as libertarian Socialism. I don't see a reason to use another term.

Because I'm an anarchist, not a libertarian socialist? I don't even think socialism has any real value in the midst of the Holocene extinction. Socialism is a way to organize industry. Industry is inherently exploitative and destructive to everything it touches. Anarchy and industrial workerist society are at odds.

6

Reply to by !deleted18811

ziq wrote

There's only so much that can be written about inaction. It's a lot easier to write about doing stuff than to write about resisting doing stuff for reasons.

1