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?
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?
That legitimately seems like a reasonable comment to me what's your objection
Maybe i'm misunderstanding it but i read it as the old boring "le anarchists just want revolution to happen" shit.
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 ?
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
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.
nor do I, but I but I do see problems arising from it
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
That's fair enough, I think another reason there's more disagreement among anarchists is that anarchism has something to say about basically every issue that exists so that's just more things you can disagree on.
What alternative is there to pluralism? Maybe it's cynical but I think if you ever believe you've found eternal unchanging truth, it's more likely that you've really just blinded yourself to other ways of thinking and you're therefore setting yourself up to fail. Whereas, with pluralism, there will still be a general will that points in one particular direction, and everyone should be able to sign off on that even if the details become more contentious in implementation.
edit: Could you give a specific example of these irreconcilable differences that would prevent us from forming an actual society?
but I don't believe what I've found is eternal or unchanging, i think it is useful for the present conditions
and i think the main philosophocal thrust of my ideology is its criticism of capitalism based on the material conditions imposed upon me and those i care about, understadning that these will always be unique and seperate, but understadning the power needed to redress them and negate capitalism is dependent on our ability to challenge and defeat the state and thus i find my ideology useful as unifying factor, which through its program tries to dismantle the state as it exists by creating out
ill finish this later
Sorry, all I meant by "eternal and unchanging" was that it was absolute, it can still depend on circumstances.
i agree, but my point is more that even though my ML take on what a communist should is in no way absolute i think its useful still as a unifying framework, complete with a practical response to the reality that the state will use violence to suppress us if we threaten the interests of capital
well then you read it very very different to what it says
ok sorry then
its cool, it does come off as hostile