Virgil Hexas 🦇🦇🦇 on Twitter
twitter.com
to everyone mad about this: yes chomsky is an old man but anarchists periodically need to be put in their place so people dont start thinking they have rational political views— Virgil Hexas 🦇🦇🦇 (@virgiltexas) October 12, 2020

Virgil Texas has declared war on Anarchism

Edit: Lol did I start a site wide struggle session?

Edit2: keep it going. Is this the most commented normal post yet?

    • bamboo68 [none/use name,any]
      2·
      4 years ago

      nobody is lol, anarchism isn't a systemic belief, the only systemic part of it is its critique, which is the part that actually makes sense, then when the new world has to be not just possible but y'know ... brought into existence the contradictions emerge between whichever set of ideals this version of the program is built on

          • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Maybe i'm misunderstanding it but i read it as the old boring "le anarchists just want revolution to happen" shit.

            • Liberalism [he/him,they/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I took it to mean that you can take an anarchist lens of analysis to multiple different, but valid conclusions, and that when it comes time to implement those ideas you have to reconcile those different possibilities, is that what you meant @bamboo68 ?

              • bamboo68 [none/use name,any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                this is much closer to what I was trying to get out, anarchist thought in based more on subjective/individual values (as opposed to say marxism: which seeks to find a universal value through focusing on material conditions) so while anarchists will easily build a consensus on their criticisms of capitalism (or ML socialism)

                but because there is (to varying degrees) this rejection of universality anarchism will not build consensus in advancing a program, which they don't see as their political goal, but rather the ideals of pluralism and (non bourgouise) democracy themselves

                beyond that i think anarchists will disagree A LOT with most anarchists about how the new world should be... beyond "possible" but then they get to have more meetings

                • Liberalism [he/him,they/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Eh, I don't see this as a problem. There's too much uncertainty in life to expect objective answers to ideological questions, and even if there weren't, people approach them with different core assumptions and priorities based on their personal experience. Trying to eliminate all discord seems like an impossible task to me.

                  I feel like that kind of viewpoint sort of ignores the fact that the way society is organized is on a spectrum, rather than just "organized right" and "organized wrong," and that even if two people disagree on ideals it's possible to satisfy both of them so long as they have the same initial values and don't disagree too sharply. Idk, maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your point, but I don't see total ideological homogeneity as a prerequisite for having a society that works.

                  • bamboo68 [none/use name,any]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Eh, I don’t see this as a problem.

                    nor do I, but I but I do see problems arising from it

                    I don’t see total ideological homogeneity as a prerequisite for having a society that works.

                    of course its not, most americans believe insane things and the country still "works"

                    my point here isnt to shit on anarchism reallly but describe why anarchists "thought leaders" are gonna vary a lot more from every other anarchists because there's a sort of refusal to accept universalizing values because these aren't every truly "universal" its gonna be a constant issue when these contradictions emerge in any kind of "discourse" (forum/twitter bullshit) or around any "figure" that advocate for what anarchism means to the when given a platform

                    i may sound harsh again, but as I understand anarchists do accept and understand that this embrace of pluralism means that deconstructing will be a lot easier than constructing, everyone can point out why capitalism and white supremacy and cishetpatriarchy are bad within anarchists circles often from direct and personal experience, but there's not an explcit program attached to direct these poltical beliefs, so they will go in different directions, there is always and always will be acts of community based on these shared experiences, but these will always seek to resolve contradictions through the path of least resistance, because resisting is actually awful no matter how much we glorify those who do