To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
Okay, I think I understand that anarchism is very heterogeneous. It does throw me off a bit, though. For example, I heard Anarchist A say billionaires should be put into re-education camps, while Anarchist B says we don't do that; that's not anarchism. How do anarchists find common ground on issues when there is such a diversity of thought ? Would they split into different communes that would basically operate under different laws and rules ? Extreme example an Anprim and a Syndicalist dont share much common ground or do they ?
Anprims share little common ground with other anarchists, especially in regards to their conclusions or their prescriptions for society (if that makes sense). Like, they might agree with say 75-90% of what another anarchist holds as their political beliefs but what the anprim believes needs to happen as a solution will be wildly different to the other person's program.
There's virtually no common ground between what a syndicalist society would look like and what an anprim society would look like. The commonalities would mostly be negative, in the sense that there would be the absence of capitalism etc., than positive, in the sense of what would be present, in their respective societies.
This is probably worse than a non-answer but how those conflicts are negotiated is itself another arena for diversity of thought.
For someone who is a platformist, for example, they might expect to see rigorous debate within anarchist society about what to do with the billionaires but that once a majority has been reached on what needs to happen that the dissenting factions need to fall in line.
A different type of anarchist might find the plurality of communes as a viable option.
It gets super complex and often there's no clear terms for how diversity of thought should be meditated except when it comes to different anarchist tendencies that have a very explicit political structure like with platformism or libertarian municipalism.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I feel like I'm pretty much onboard with anarchism. One thing that does bother me, though, is anarchist stances regarding AES and generally anarchistic geopolitics. I also have a feeling that some of them don't dislike the West enough. I'm aware that many of the anarchists on Hexbear have great politics. I'm just under the impression that outside of there, it's not that great (this is true for socialists as well, though). I guess I'm also not that vehemently opposed to states as most anarchists are; I just think anarchist organization is neat.
Honestly, and this is just speculation and my own anecdotal experiences so don't overstate the importance of what I'm about to say here, but I have found that there's a very strong emphasis on the anti- position or the negative in anarchist circles and this is reflected in how a lot of anarchists focus their criticisms and allow them to be influenced by the prevailing narrative in the media or society.
If you're anti-state it's easy to be anti-USSR, for obvious reasons, but if you're not carefully managing your biases and doing your due diligence then that leaves you very vulnerable to absorbing all of the criticisms of the USSR out there, whether they are accurate or not and whether they are situated within a historical and political context or not.
This is how you end up with MLs accusing anarchists of consuming state-department stenography.
It's easier to go along with the common narrative that the communists nearly caused a nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis than it is to dig into sources to uncover that the US was actually the primary antagonist throughout all the events leading up to it and during the crisis, for example.
Likewise, it's easy to regress into a default position if you lean too heavily on the negation. If I said "the US committed a war crime by enacting a blockade on Cuba" it's easy to dismiss this because you reject the concept of borders or states and to use that position to avoid engaging in the matter any further and to retreat to the default position by refusing to examine your own preconceptions.
Obviously this isn't the case for all anarchists and it's just a trend that I've observed etc. etc.
Elsewhere in my life I've been known to tease anarchists over this by occasionally obstructing discussions by sort of playing a veto and accusing every side of imposing an unjust hierarchy and doing the whole "both sides are wrong and neither get my support or sympathy" routine. This is done in a tongue-in-cheek way and I play it for outrage (so an example might be about Israel and Palestine and me feigning a principled objection to both sides to stir up mischief with an anarchist) but the kernel of truth in the joke is me gently saying "watch out for this urge and be careful of what it can be used in service of..."
Oh god, this is one of things that turned me away from being an anarchist. The lack of an intellectual rigor and relying on these thought terminating cliches to avoid everything problematic, to avoid everything else on the Left that you didn't necessarily agree with drove me insane.