Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W

WatDabney

@ WatDabney @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
0
Comments
594
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I reject labels in general, and that one in particular

    The simplest way I've come up with so far to illustrate my stance on the right to impose ones will on another and to counter the common notion that it equates to pacifism:

    I believe that you have the right to, if you so choose, decide that you're going to kill me, and I do not have the right to prevent you from making that choice.

    However, I also believe that I do have the right to do whatever it might take to prevent you from succeeding.

    Would it be correct to assume that you would be openly critical of, say, a marxist revolution

    Possibly.

    I would be critical of it to be sure, since I believe that anything that enshrines the nominal right of some to force the submission of others is doomed to end up just another authoritarianism, But I doubt I'd make much of an issue of my criticisms, since if nothing else, a successful revolution would potentially create a bit of temporary breathing room, before the next set of power-hungry psychopaths slotted themselves into the system and became the next set of tyrants needing to be overthrown.

    but ultimately would not use force to stop it

    Yes.

    Would sabotage in favor of a fascist counter-revolution be on the table?

    On my part? Of course not. I'm not even willing to try to force submission to something I advocate - I'm certainly not willing to try to force submission to something I oppose.

    Did I misunderstand your question?

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • ...if we change everyone’s minds

    Sorry, but the fact that you phrase it in that way, as if other people's minds are ours to change, makes it pretty clear that you haven't understood even the most basic things I've said.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I think it will come about naturally (at least if humanity manages to not destroy itself in the meantime). In fact, I believe that it's inevitable if we survive that long - that humanity, given sufficient time, can't help but ultimately come to understand, essentially universally, the inherent destructiveness of institutionalized authority.

    I just think that point is unavoidably far in the future.

    I spent most of my adult life doing just as you say - advocating for a "least harm" alternative as at least something that could possibly be achieved.

    But I reached a point at which I just could no longer do it. To me, the logic behind my stance against the nominally rightful imposition of the will of some upon others is so solid that I can't deny it, and the need for intellectual integrity is so vital that I can't pretend I don't see it, so I have to content myself with idealism and leave it to others to pursue least harm stopgaps. I just can't do it - it would be a betrayal of my convictions

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • You appear to have missed my point.

    When I say that it all resolves to individual decisions, I'm not speaking of an individual decision, but of a veritable flood of them. The systems are built on millions... billions... quindecillions of individual decisions. But they're still, each and all, individual decisions.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I'm already there, at least to the degree possible in this world. I believe that I do not and in fact cannot possess a right to force others to submit to my will and act accordingly.

    What you're really asking is if I have a meaningful way to get the rest of humanity there, and I not only don't, but can't. I try to share my thinking, as I've done here, but beyond that, there's nothing really I can do. Of necessity, individuals have to choose this path of their own volition.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • How does the one preclude the other?

    Are you really saying that you can't even conceive of l6oving as a part of a society without imposing ones will upon others?

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • Nonetheless, all of it resolves to individual decisions.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • As I noted, one of the alternatives to class that people invoke when they seek to justify the imposition of their preferences is claimed expertise.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I believe they're both - the preferences of some imposed upon others.

    And I reject the imposition of ones preferences upon others entirely.

    Possibly the point that's causing difficulty is that I don't believe that people can be successfully prohibited from imposing their wills upon others, since that in itself is an imposition of will. Rather, for a society to eatablish and maintain stable anarchism, it must be the case that each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference) freely choisecto refrain from the imposition of their wills upon others

    And yes, I know how idealistic that is, but nonetheless, I see no way around it. Any society in which some claim the right to impose their wills upon others, regardless of the details, will inevitably end up authoritarian.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • My goal isn't a world in which those who impose are imposed upon instead, but a world in which the imposition of ones will upon another is seen, as I believe it should be, as an intolerable wrong regardless of who's doing the imposing.

    That such a world is a distant ideal makes it no less my goal.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • As long as people who claim the right to impose their wills upon others continue to exist, anarchism will remain a practical impossibility.

    That includes self-professed anarchists who claim that right.

    I would like to be free in real life, but I never will be. Humanity is nowhere even close to the intellectual, philosophical and psychological maturity necessary to create or maintain such a world. So the best I can do is share some ideas that will hopefully contribute to our progress toward that distant goal.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • Capitalism is not a moral agent.

    The actions that are ascribed to "capitalism" are the actions of individuals.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • So your personal strain of ideology is that it you have absolutely no predictive power and you can’t do or change anything, but eventually everyone else will agree with you?

    No.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • Contradictory in the same way as the paradox of tolerance.

    The paradox of tolerance is bullshit apologetics.

    You think people should not believe they have the right to tell others what to believe.

    No - I think, exactly as I said, that I cannot possibly possess such a right, and that any argument one might make for such a supposed right is necessarily either self-defeating, since it's a right that would be held equally by all, or reconciled by the presumption of some sort of hierarchy by which some are empowered to impose while others are relegated merely to being imposed upon.

    The usual way to resolve this is by turning it into a contract where the right (not to be told what to believe) is extended only to those who extend that right to others.

    In the first place, if it's conditional, it's not a right.

    Beyond that, my ideas about rights would require much more of an essay than I'm interested in writing, but in a nutshell:

    I don't believe that anyone ever needs to claim a right to not be made subject to the will of another, since not being subject to the will of another is the default state.

    One can only be made subject to the will of another if that other explicitly acts to bring that about, so I believe that it's that action that must be justified - that they must successfully claim a right to so act. Otherwise, ome remains as one was - not subject to the will of another.

    And I don't believe that a case can be made for a right to act to make amother subject to ones will that is not either self-defeating or reconciled by the presumption of some sort of hierarchy, so I don't believe such a right can be claimed in an anarchistic society.

    But then you have to distinguish between those who do and do not uphold the contract, and determine how to enforce actions against people who do not uphold the contract.

    By what authority would one make, much less make others subject to, any such distinction or determination?

    Fundamentally you cannot shy away from the obligation of imposing your (hopefully, collective) will on others in some way.

    I entirely reject the ludicrous notion that there's any such obligation, nor do I have any intention or desire to pursue any such imposition.

    And I'd also note that "collective" makes no difference to me - I think an individual is no more rightfully subject to the wills of many than to the will of one. That many might agree to violate the rights of an individual doesn't somehow grant that violation legitimacy (if it did, gang rape would be legal).

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I cannot possibly possess the right to "abolish" anything.

    I want to be free to choose to not take part in or be subject to either. Other people's preferences are their own.

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • I think class is more in the nature of a consequence of that dynamic.

    I don't think it generally starts with a presumption of class per se, since it's ultimately an individual thing. It starts with an individual's generally entirely unexamined presumption that they rightfully have some say over what other people may, may not, must or must not do, say, think or believe.

    The problem is that any argument one might make to justify that claimed right is necessarily an argument that another might make for the same claimed right, which immediately leads to stalemate. And that is the reason that the conception of class, whether consciously or not, is introduced - in order to break the stalemate, it's necessary to take the position, again consciously or not, that one is distinct from others in such a way that they are subject to ones declarations regarding their decisions even as one is not subject to their declarations regarding ones own.

    Note though that while class is a common conception by which individuals attempt to resolve that cognitive dissonance, it's not the only one. Many who understand and thus generally at least try to avoid the pitfall of class still fall prey to the same fundamental error simply by basing their own presumed authority on something like claimed expertise, superior intellect or superior mental health.

  • Why Are Some Democrats Backing MAGA's Anti-LGBTQ+ Censorship?

    Jump

  • I couldn't say exactly why, but broadly it's safe to assume that the answer could be found by the age-old method "follow the money."

  • "Anarchism is not about [...] class or opposing archists"

    Jump

  • In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis

    In this one.

    I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else (the first place that you've gone wrong), but my own anarchism consists of little more than the recognition that I cannot possibly have the right to decide what someone else may, may not, must or must not do, say, think or believe, and the ambition to help bring about a world in which each and all recognize and accept that simple truth.

    Beyond that, there are any number of things that I'd want to see as a part of the society of which I was a part, but I understand that since the foundation of that society will be that each and all are entirely free to prefer and work towards whatever they desire, there's no possible way that I could make any predictions, much less any declarations, regarding what that society will end up being, since what it will and can only end up being is whatever comes of the expression of the free and unconstrained preferences of each and all. Since nobody will possess the nominal right to force anyone else to submit to any particuar thing, we'll necessarily end up compromising, and there's no way to know what shape those compromises will take.

    Personally I think it's bludgeoningly obvious that anyone who presumes to decree what shape an anarchistic society must take hasn't even grasped the most basic necessary realities of such a society.

  • "Amid the effects of the Israeli war and the widespread destruction, beekeepers in Gaza are resuming their work anew, in an attempt to revive their production and restore the pulse of life to what the

    Jump

  • Cue the IDF targeting beehives in 5, 4, 3...