What are /r/DebateAnarchism's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

It depends on the circumstances. Are we going to punish the mentally ill for all their actions? What about people under tremendous pressure to act (family held hostsage, threatened with death or blackmail etc)?

People aren't always responsible for their behaviour, Aristotle wrote about it in Nicomachean Ethics, drawing a distinction between voluntary and involuntary behaviour. I don't think people can really bear the full cost of involuntary behaviour. Though involuntary behaviour is an area filled with disagreements on what is and isn't.

A non-nuclear family structure, such as a lesbian or gay couple raising kids, or polyamorous or extended/communal parenting are what I'm talking about. I can't be sure, but the statistics which existence you insinuate very likely prove that families destroyed by the drug war or exposed to extreme poverty and inferior education do worse, which is obviously true. The problem with your reasoning is it seems to say, "therefore the nuclear family (and further, the middle class white family) is the ideal way of life" when the reality is you're pointing at instances where society is actively fighting to shame or destroy that "alternative" family unit.

As for gender roles and the nuclear family being creations of capitalism to target marketing, I'm pretty sure this is mainstream sociology by this point. I suggest this book. There was a lot of pseudo science that was widely believed about supremacy of the white male that was still pretty blatant during the heyday of capitalism, test subjects being 100% middle class, straight white boys and men and their perspectives considered the "norm" of society, which I imagine is a contributing factor in your own worldview.

I think direct democracy is as contradictory as it gets, and I my mind it has nothing to do with anarchy. The demos refers to the political unit, and when you govern each other in its name, in the name of a shared identity of sorts ("the people", "our commune", etc.), you got a cracy. Government of all by each, government by the people. It is precisely the kind of externalization and mediation anarchists want to abandon. Adding a 'direct' doesn't resolve the contradiction; that's about as silly as a horizontal hierarchy.

As far as I can tell, the anarchy/democracy confusion is a fairly recent development, you can often trace it back to Bookchin or Occupy. Check out some links in Anarchists Against Democracy: In Their Own Words for various anarchist takes on democracy.

> Why?

Well, strictly speaking because fascism is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Silencing dissent on reddit doesn't create system of government, nor is there any belligerent nationalism happening.

Fascism doesn't mean "things I don't like".

Furthermore, this kind of "all speech is equal" bullshit creates an environment where bullying is belittled as "a growing phase" and racism is just something "you can walk away from".

I first heard about them from David Graeber's Fragments of Anarchist Anthropology, though it really doesn't cover all too much about the Piaroa in particular, because it's more about general anarchic trends in anthropology.

I've also read Stanford Zent's The political ecology of ethnic frontiers and relations among the Piarao of the Middle Orinoco. Which goes into parts of their oral history and how well it matches up to anthropological records. It also talks about how they happened to survive European colonialism because they occupied hard to reach areas due to threats from other tribes.

>Pornography incarnates male supremacy. It is the DNA of male dominance. Every rule of sexual abuse, every nuance of sexual sadism, every highway and byway of sexual exploitation, is encoded in it.

>pornography is the orchestrated destruction of women's bodies and souls; rape, battery, incest, and prostitution animate it; dehumanization and sadism characterize it; it is war on women, serial assaults on dignity, identity, and human worth; it is tyranny. Each woman who has survived knows from the experience of her own life that pornography is captivity–the woman trapped in the picture used on the woman trapped wherever he's got her.

Source

One of my biggest takeaways from reading Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism is that the anarchist definition of liberty is dependent on community. Specifically, liberty and equality were inseparable from each other: we are only as free as the least free among us.

In contrast, the modern concepts of liberty that are independent of community and take the individual as completely independent of the society in which they live seems to frequently justify moral licensing, behaving immorally without considering yourself immoral.

>They wouldn't be purged by the State

But they would be murdered, just by a group of Anarchists instead of a secret police force, all for saying "I disagree"? Such a free society!

Why shouldn't I be allowed to read Mein Kampf? Are you for book burning now? What if I want to read 'The International Jew' by Henry Ford or 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman?

> As someone sympathetic to the primitivist argument I do not like the usage of the term 'civilization' as it's often used as a 'coat rack' on which to hang all you don't like about contemporary times.

Yes. Civilisation is often the bogeyman, like capitalism, like Leviathan.

> Relatedly, the advent of agriculture, often called the decisive moment things went wrong, seems like an arbitrary cut-off.

When you say "it seems" are you dealing in the realm of ideas, or in the realm of fact? It seems like you are in the former. John Zerzan's essay, Agriculture, is not arbitrary. It is a good essay, I recommend reading it: <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-agriculture>. But JZ doesn't put forward agriculture as a "cut-off." Instead he says that agriculture was when symbolic culture won out. Indeed, there is anthropological research to suggest that fragments of symbolic culture ebbed and flowed long before agriculture, see Græber & Wengrow's paper on the matter: <https://www.academia.edu/13105162/_with_David_Graeber_Farewell_to_the_childhood_of_man_ritual_seasonality_and_the_origins_of_inequality._Journal_of_the_Royal_Anthropological_Institute_2015_The_Biennial_Henry_Myers_Lecture_>.

> Why was the advent of fire not problematic for instance?

Wasn't it?

> And aren't there any technologies post agriculture worth saving?

That depends on how you calculate worth, doesn't it?

> Basically: what would be a good definition of technology which one can use to determine what parts of it are and what parts aren't worth keeping around?

Such a categorisation would just be an idea. I think it would be more harmful than helpful. We need to put our ideas aside and observe, together.

There's a deeper principle to anarchist ethics, the rejection of transcendence (i.e. impositions from outside), from which a rejection of hierarchical political relations is a consequence.

There's a great reading on this in Deleuze and Anarchism, Chapter 6: Immanent Ethics and Forms of Representation.

There's a copy of the book free posted to raddle here.

>The common usage is not a bunch of people reading Marx. They've never read Marx & have no idea what Marx wrote.

Im not sure this is true. I believe it to be entirely the case.

>"Objective" does not mean "unbiased."

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/objective

I think you'll notice unbiased in the list of synonyms.

>There aren't truly unbiased people. There's no unbiased media, etc.

So? Does it make my point of pointing out how biased the marxist definition of exploitation any less true? No.

I dont even know what you're arguing with me about and its pretty pointless to continue considering I've given more than enough reasoning to substantiate my claim that the marxist definition of exploitation is not objective and contains a bias which I explicitly separated from the the context I used it in.

>theres a rule there that don't allow violent speech

That is a Reddit site wide rule, nothing to do with the r/anarchism sub-reddit. One of the unfortunate facts about being on Reddit is that the sub's must follow the site wide rules, even if Reddit is hilariously inconsistent in banning violent speech (otherwise the_donald and frenworld would have been banned long ago).

Edit: If you're looking for more radical platforms, may I suggest raddle.me ?

>the primary goal of the patriarchy is to instil ideals that view certain ideologies, honor, the father, family, community, country etc. as being more powerful than pure money.

Untrue. The primary goal of patriarchy is to oppress women, either via political force (ie, not being able to vote or hold office, not being able to legally divorce, etc) or socially. It has nothing to do with honor or family -- those are myths. Clearly, as anti-capitalism still exist outside of a patriarchal framework.

>it is only after "ayn rand" that this traditional conservativism was replaced with the "greed is good" conservatism that we see in the states.

Untrue. This ideology gained popularity during the 19th century, particularly in Victorian England and the US. It abated for a few decades after the Great Depression, but made its way back to cultural hegemony in the 1980s.

>why do we keep spreading this propaganda?

It is you who are spreading MRA propoganda, friend. Maybe read some books on the history of misogyny or the history of feminism

Although, it's true that he held a deep and irrational animosity (which was to some extent mutual) towards Bakunin, I think that his view on the matter of the state are often misrepresented.

Here's a short overview of Marx's relation to the state: https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

P.S: Besides Federici, there's Harry Cleaver, his new book <em>Rupturing the Dialectic: The Struggle against Work, Money, and Financialization</em> is pretty cool.

Among the more libertarian Marxists there's also Massimo De Angelis, his two books The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital and Omnia Sunt Communia: On the Commons and the Transformation to Postcapitalism are a delight to read.

Kropotkin isn't as dense as many other writers, thankfully, and there are quite a few readings out there you can listen to like an audiobook. This one is alright, but you might find better ones elsewhere if you look.

Any anarchist who doesn't engage anti-civ critique isn't taking authority seriously.

Extractivism and colonialism go hand-in-hand. Technologies made under capitalism reproduce the values of that system. There are less shitty forms of technology, but as they become more complex they start to require specialists, and once there are specialists those people or those who control them gain undue power. Does the user of the tool decide how it is used or does the tool decide for the user how it is used? These are all relevant considerations.

Either way, a free world likely doesn't have TV and internet and doesn't want it. There are plenty beautiful forms of music that can be made. Civilisation has created your desire for electric guitars the same as any other desire.

It doesn't matter though, because we will never reach a post-civilised world. Technology already exists and it won't go away in many lifetimes. We can adopt a thorough critical approach to it, and move forward in our politics.

A substantial portion of people over on raddle are anti-civ. Primitivism is mostly outdated.

> What I'm getting at is how can we change the language to actually create rational discussion? Or is this an impossible task?

A lot of Chomsky's works are dedicated to studying exactly this topic.

I am a big fan of logical positivism. It was criticised (by Chomsky nonetheless) for not being compatible with how humans think, but today we have powerful enough helpers in the form of computers to overcome a lot of the problems it poses.

It requires learning and using some form of a formal language. The main shortcoming of formal languages are verbosity (due to being a subset of natural languages). People that learn formal languages (like programming languages) from a young age don't have much trouble using them, but (as with every other language) it requires practice. If your area of work is not related to heavy computer science theory, formal verification systems development or writing software tests, you will lose the ability to 'speak' it. It makes it incompatible with the vast majority of Earth's population.

Anyway, even if you don't want to speak it all the time, just learning a bit of how formal systems work is a great improvement. An undergrad that knows his way around Coq or Haskell is already miles ahead of someone who doesn't.

And there's the major problem - there is no need to change the language (a lot of decent ones exist), but people should be changed instead.

There are torrents of Правда magazines on the web, including CNT\FAI times. It was interesting to read, and I believe it shows how it worked here too. How ordinary soviet people was supposed to see it.

At first, all lefty actors were in a good light, but scrolling further thru issues, you'd see how they started to call trotskists faschists, connecting these words via hyphen, then they would question anarchists. At one point chosen delegates of Catalonia traveled to Moscow and kissed with Stalin - one of them, being called ex-anarchist, commented on how great it is in USSR and he wished for Spain to be the same. Then you'd see how anarchists (!) were criticized (!!) for rejecting authority (!!!) - that's when pro-USSR forces started to date with official government. And days after the they won and anarchists retreated, calling for no confrontation to avoid state's violence, Pravda published about how communialized agriculture was unproductive and was a bone in a throat of farmer comrades, who cried for hierarchy to return.

Google it, and reference wiki for key dates to look into.

edit: I believe it was that one:

https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5434962

Watching "No Gods No Masters", I saw a cover of Pravda issue in the video, so I started to lurk. When I was looking for this single issue (it's real), I've discovered the absurdity I've written above.

I found a pretty substantial and seemingly well-researched critique of transhumanist ideas within anarchism that you might find interesting.

The Art of War is about strategy, not politics. You'd be a fool to ignore it.

Don't fight a war you don't have plans to win.

The size and power of your army doesn't matter in the scheme of things. The army that wants to win, will lose to the army that has to win.

These are two basic rules that make and collapse empires.

I'm not.But half of my friends are.See,I'm from Greece,a country with a strong anarchist presence and since the creation of Συνωμοσία Πυρήνων της Φωτιάς(Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei{a Greek Individualist/Nihilist radical organisation}) a lot of people over here studied and adapted Anarchonihilism.I think "we" pretty much invented the term. The term nihilism itself is pretty general though.As mentioned there are really a lot of nihilism types (Existential,political,moral etc) and people tend to identify themselves in one or more of these types. When it comes to AnarchoNihilism ,the term is strict to the way someone is treating his political activism(doesn't have much to do with the philosophical part of nihilism),although from experience I can say that most tend to accept existential and moral nihilism too. Nihilists here are(or becoming) a big part of the Anarchism political field and that has it's ups and downs. You see there are several "incidents" of Nihilists and other "Social" Anarchists(Anarcocommunists/Anarcosyndicalists etc) fighting each other.In the second largest Greek Town,Thessaloniki there was even a civil war against them with each side attacking violently the other side's squats and members. Also it should be noted,that at least here,pretty much half of the Anarconihilists are also Vegans. (I have yet to meet a Vegan "Social" Anarchist,lol)

Sorry for my English,I can certainly do better but i'm kinda in a hurry right now :(

You are reaching the limit of my current understanding of Anarchism so don’t put to much weight on my words.

I think humans are pretty competent at deciding when something was an overreaction. I think a socially conscious working class can create a new system of law amongst themselves, specific to their culture and traditions, not one forced upon them by state/capitalism interest.

Maybe self-actualization isn’t the correct term. Regardless , capitalism and the state force you to work for most of your life to pay taxes on a home you don’t really own until you’re elderly. This is not how humans are meant to live. The critique of capitalism gets into much more than that (from wikipedia; inherently exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and creates massive economic inequality, commodifies people, and is anti-democratic and leads to an erosion of human rights while it incentivises imperialist expansion and war.) but the soul sucking nature of capitalism is my primary issue with it.

Check out The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand, it explains capitalism origin in feudalism, where peasants were forced to work on a lords land for shelter and food. Capitalism functioned to keep this ruling class powerful, and therefore is in conflict with the common interest.

No worries, havent had a lot of in depth discussion during the pandemic. You’ve definitely helped me clarify some of my beliefs. Again if you are serious about anarchism I’d recommend reading some books on the subject. The anarchist library is a huge collection of anarchist adjacent text from various time periods and places, and libgen can be used for books that you have no access to.

You can use a proxy server to get past blocked websites. If you want to try it out, there's http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html

Either way, if you post times/dates you're available to do an AMA, I'm sure the mods would accommodate your schedule.

I have a link to it a friend of mine added to anonfiles (https://anonfiles.com/file/18dd6d5133800d66f80dc37e24bfc41c ). It is the whole piece.

Same here -- I'll try to respond to ol' boy with some of the quotes Bob Black has from Chomsky after I get out of work as well.

Thanks,

May I please suggest Bob Black's piece "Chomsky on the Nod", from his book Defacing the Currency. The point of the book is that Chomsky is not really an anarchist. It is a pretty convincing argument, and starts with a quote from Chomsky in which he himself says he is not really an anarchist.

So, I am going to upvote you because that is a great point, Chomsky absolutely wants a state and state intervention in capitalism ANDDDDD he has just the moralistic critique of capitalism that /u/GhostOfImNotATroll accuses anarchists of. -- but I will mitigate that praise by saying that bob Black does a great job of showing that Chomsky is not an anarchist but a reformed marxist -- and he demonstrates this primarily by quoting Chomsky saying exactly this himself.

edit for link and for a more filled out 2nd paragraph: https://anonfiles.com/file/18dd6d5133800d66f80dc37e24bfc41c

>https://zeronet.io/ uses a blockchain in order to keep track of modifications of zerosites.

No it does not. I can assure you that. There are no blockchains in ZeroNet. The only blockchain that is used is for .bit domain names. The ZeroName dns fetches the entries from namecoin and then the zeronet client resolves the domains from zeroname.

Other than that, no blockchain is used. Site modifications are not tracked. Instead there's a content.json file that contains the sha hashes of the files, and the latest update time. Peers download the newest files in order to obtain the latest site updates.

There is no blockchain storing older data. And as such, things can be deleted from zeronet.

>Thanks to that you can create decentralised internet sites, without servers but still under the authority of the site creator only.

No. The sites do not use the blockchain at all. But yes, the sites are still under the authority of those who have the private key for the domain. You can avoid this using two mechanisms. The first is to publicly post the key. There have been sites like this in the past. The other is to construct a merger site, with hubs and front-ends. Both parts can be replaced by users, and easily cloned. If you don't like the front end, use a different one to access the same content. If you don't like the content, use the front end to connect to different hubs to see different content. Or replace both if you'd like.

The site creator only has authority over the address, not the site. Sites are freely cloneable and able to be edited as you please. And merger sites allow user-ran hubs to display content.

It's an elegant system that removes corruption.

So, in any type of economy, the incentives of greed will always exist as a basic feature of human nature.

I read Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology several years ago. But thankfully, it's a kindle with highlights. Anyway, the problem with a gift economy is that gifts are given with the expectation of reciprocity. I mean, if I give you something for your b-day, you might feel like you should get me something for my b-day, also I might feel like you should get me something for my b-day. And the value of the gift matters, too. If I get you one of those hella expensive video cards and you get me some toothpicks, that's a problem. In such a way, I might be able to exploit the value of my wealth (because wealth still exists, perhaps in a different form) to create conditions not unlike today's poverty. In trying to reciprocate my gift, I drive you to ruin.

Thus, I take issue with the idea that money is an incentive dependent on greed. The relationship is reversed, greed is an incentive to hoard money. So, if he thinks that a gift economy is in any way safe from this danger, then whatever assumptions he assumes about people would also be true in a market socialist economy and be just as safe.

Also, I would definitely recommend that book. It's a good intro to economic anthropology.

In both "The Art of War", and "The Prince", warfare is being described as something done for economic gain, i.e. to expand terrortory for either more economic oppertunities, or simply to plunder the resources of a foreign land for domestic consumption.

To say there would be no war because its not profitable is simply not true. For most of history, war was fought for profit, and profit it was.

All the pros of capitalism were pointed out by Smith in The Wealth of Nations. The theory of division of labor was around long before Marx was born. I don't quite get the circlejerk about Marx, nothing I've read of his seems that original or profound.

I'm an economically agnostic anarchist.

I'm not gonna sit here and simp for landlords but i'm also pretty skeptical of the LTV.

I see the following as the biggest threats to the individual (respectively):

1. the state
2. the corporations
3. the Hamiltonian-described "Athenian Mob"

I dream of peaceful, voluntary communities. Individuals and collective groups min/max'ing the dials of coercion and cooperation to 1 and 10.

I'll welcome you, because about 5 years ago I was where you are now, and there's a rich history of commies & capitalists, Marxist and Austrian economists who all answer affirmatively the most important question of our movement: "Do you hate the state?"

Someone i'd recommend is Michael Malice. Dude was born in Soviet Ukrain, and is equal parts a fanboy of Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman. Is welcome on Glenn freaking Beck every Friday and every week tries to work into the conversation a dig the constitution as being illegitimate.

He's got a great compilation of anarchist writings called "The Anarchist Handbook" [1] that include everyone from the godless Stirner to the christian Tolstoy, from the American abolitionist Lysander Spooner to the Lithuanian communist Emma Goldman. He even threw in a bit of Rothbard for people like you.

I think Malice might be our best bet to steer people away from the Ancap-to-Fasch pipeline, and create an Ancap-to-Anarchist pipeline.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Handbook-Michael-Malice/dp/B095DVF8FJ

> as far as I can tell it's trying to shoehorn marxism into an early anthropology theory

I mean, Marx is considered one of, if not the founder of sociology and the founder of modern anthropology has been called a Gramscian Marxist and makes a similar arguement as you do above about historical materialism iirc.

And I don't think it's disputed that Marx/Engels read Morgan (this was cutting edge stuff at the time, basically Darwin but to anthropology), The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State is practically built off of those theories imo.

They're kinda all (well boas) wrong though (both Hobbes and Rousseau), The Dawn of Everything has kinda proven that there is no one path/progression through history and that humanity has taken all sorts of forms of governance and has oscillated from authoritarian to egalitarian and everything in between.

this was actually discussed in this post capitalism book 'Four Futures' by Peter Frase. https://www.amazon.com/Four-Futures-After-Capitalism-Jacobin/dp/1781688133

Even after money is abolished people inevitably create other means to differentiate themselves from others or 'create hierarchy'. In fact its obviously already happening now with 'Likes', 'Followers', 'Upvotes', 'numbers of friends' ad infinitum. The neuropsychological underpinnings of it is amongst many things serotonin and the 'survival instinct' eg "if i have more Likes than you i will have a higher chance of survival than you"

as to whether this animal instinct absolutely hampers dissolution of central power and self governance, i dont know. Part and parcel of hierarchy and governance is that different animals/humans will have different degrees of physical/emotional/cognitive strength/independence and lead to create power relationships/hierarchies, and these could be balanced/unbalanced/symmetrical/asymmetrical

What do you think of the critique of Proudhon cited in this book?:

https://www.academia.edu/32888580/Rupturing-the-Dialectic-final.pdf

Also, any comment on the claim that anarchists should focus on the "production of human beings" in their analysis, instead of the usual talk about the production of "stuff"/commodities (Asking what kind of humans does this system produce, instead of talking about what kind of "things" it would produce).

This claim is often made by James C. Scott and David Graeber.

I don’t have time for all of this but

> Let's take a look at the tragedy of the commons example

The tragedy of the commons was never scientific. It’s a hypothetical thought experiment that gained way too much traction. Here is a good tldr blog piece about it.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

Here is something meatier if you’re into that.

http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998

The tragedy of the commons is hypothetical supposition that private ownership over land is superior because the owners would have an interest in maintaining it. Turns out collectively owned land has the same interests, and is actually resilient against degradation since many people have a say in how it’s used rather than one person who can run it ragged for the money. Land degradation is absolutely a thing and is of concern, but collective ownership—something uncommon under a capitalist market economy—is better according to the current scientific evidence we have on the topic.

>https://raddle.me/f/reddit/132309/psa-settlers-giving-reparations-to-the-people-they-ve There's a link to where it started if ya wanna read through some of em.

Is this you telling me that it's the raddle people claiming that white people can't use some piece of land? This is your all-illuminating source of indigenous authoritarianism? The rumour has it that everybody there is just Ziq though, so don't despair too much!

>Through violence. Same way it did for the current landowners. People domt want to get negatively affected.

So you want to fight every property owner on this planet? Is that your plan?? Are you Batman or something?

https://raddle.me/f/reddit/132309/psa-settlers-giving-reparations-to-the-people-they-ve There's a link to where it started if ya wanna read through some of em.

>And just out of morbid curiosity, how do you imagine we will abolish private property and how exactly will that prevent a group of indigenous people from making sure you'll never step on what they decide is 'their' land.

Through violence. Same way it did for the current landowners. People domt want to get negatively affected.

so you're ok with this blatant disinfo? i'm not a reddit mod and i'm not a cop or state apologist.

how can i ban someone when i'm not a mod here?

i mean look at this nonsense:

>They have openly claimed it is unanarchist to not support the formation of an indigenous state with private property and some group that prevents the untrustable whites as they say from stewarding land

Where do you see me (ziq) saying anything like that?

https://raddle.me/f/reddit/132309/psa-settlers-giving-reparations-to-the-people-they-ve

I said if the state who took my grandfather's land and handed it to settlers would by some miracle offer it back to my family, we'd take it. How does that make me a state and cop apologist?

Well, idk, take a look at logs yourself - https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/bans, https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/moderation_log. I don't believe either of two mods of /r/Anarchism mod /f/Anarchism - if they do, that indicates a problem.

“Communalism as an ideology is not sullied by the individualism and the often explicit antirationalism of anarchism; nor does it carry the historical burden of Marxism’s authoritarianism as embodied in Bolshevism. It does not focus on the factory as its principal social arena or on the industrial proletariat as its main historical agent; and it does not reduce the free community of the future to a fanciful medieval village. Its most important goal is clearly spelled out in a conventional dictionary definition: Communalism, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is ”a theory or system of government in which virtually autonomous local communities are loosely bound in a federation.”

https://raddle.me/wiki/communalism_and_anarchy

I like this balance.

Wrote something on trauma a couple days ago.

TL;DR: Trauma forces you to find answers in a world that stopped making sense the moment it really hurt you. As far as I can tell, it's a defense-mechanism leading you to a more social/systemic approach to the problem. Because it usually is, in one way or another, systemic.

>I wasn’t able to fully recover from that, because in this society it’s not something that wasn’t supposed to happen. [...]
>
>I’m not constantly looking for better analysis and ways to communicate 'the beauty and potential of anarchy' because I wanna feel smart or because I have my identity attached to an ideology and its aesthetics. No, I do it because I'm naturally commited to avoiding pain.

No. I don't think so, but it does depend on how those terms are defined.

An interesting take on this is from Simon Critchley in his book Infinitely Demanding -- see from page 4 to the end of the 1st chapter for "active" vs "passive" nihilism, and why Critchley doesn't think that an anarchic politics should be grounded in either of these, but rather grounded in an ethics of action and experience.

https://vk.com/doc5787984_428464297?hash=a5fe28e7ee08dba5d3&amp;dl=e13874d6addd5ffa91

The anarchist library and AudibleAnarchist channel are free sources with a variety of topics.

According to encyclopedia.com, citing The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright The Columbia University Press:

>At the time of the Spanish conquest (16th cent.), the Guaraní lived in settlements consisting of four to eight large communal dwellings, each of which accommodated 100 people or more. Chiefs resided patrilocally, but other men lived in their wives' houses and performed bride-service. They depended primarily on intensive agriculture supplemented by fishing, hunting, and gathering; the staple crops were corn and manioc. Men cleared fields that women tilled. Although their material culture was not advanced, Guaraní songs, dances, and myths constituted a rich body of folklore. Their religion was based on an impressive and elaborate mythology. The shaman was believed to possess supernatural powers that allowed him to ward off evil and cure sickness.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/latin-america-and-caribbean/mesoamerican-indigenous-peoples/guarani

> However, as anarchists you resist control if it becomes a self-conscious entity why not just give it rights and respect?

Rights and respect are kind of not a concept in anarchism (:
There are tools for processing information (Coq, dedicated conlangs), but the problem is it's very hard to describe existing systems to a passable degree.

No, its a separate term. Its so unusual though that you can't even find it on most online dictionaries or even most moderately sized dictionaries.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/illision

>n. The act of dashing or striking against.

>Latin illisio, from illidere, illisum, to strike against; prefix il- in + laedere to strike.

Pretty straight forward latin root, just highly uncommon in use.

People should explain what they think, not make empty analogies to create caos, like OP did, posts should be creating a debate, OP wasn't, an uncharitable response is just a reaction to threads like this, please stop allowing bullshit threads like this and people will refrain from being uncharitable...

OPs analogy was bullshit, it's based on nothing more than an deceitful speculation, that's the definition of bullshit actually.

>bullshit (bo͝olˈshĭtˌ)►

>n. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.

>n. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.

>n. Insolent talk or behavior.

Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullshit

https://zeronet.io/ uses a blockchain in order to keep track of modifications of zerosites. Thanks to that you can create decentralised internet sites, without servers but still under the authority of the site creator only.

Neither - the anarchist ethic is permanent insurrection.

&gt; The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged

And I read the following [today on raddle](https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/95491/why-a-radical-geography-must-be-anarchist) by anarchist geographer Simon Springer

&gt; Smith is correct, revolution is more than just the capture of the state; it exemplifies a totalizing spatial logic of Promethean impulse that seeks to remake everything according to a rational plan (Newman, 2011). Aside from the obvious authoritarianism of such a project, we should also recognize that not everything needs to be remade, and revolution is insensitive to the ‘other worlds’ and ‘diverse economies’ that already exist and are continually being remade through experimentation beyond capitalism (Gibson-Graham, 2008; White and Williams, 2012). Insurrection defies the blueprint imposed upon society by institutions—whether capitalist or Marxist—and consists of the voluntary assertion of autonomous self-arrangement so that one may immediately disengage from established discourses and structures, becoming emancipated from domination through a politics of refusal and the prefiguration of alternatives.

Most vegans have shit politics, and veganism is often not appropriate. Here's one example to think about:

&#x200B;

An open question to Raddle on vitamin B12, researching harms as vegans, and Cobalt

> In your "utopia" what happens to me if I don't feel like working for free, and expect to be compensated for my labor?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/99l5wf/why_would_the_collapse_of_the_state_lead_to/e4sam7i/?st=jl8p4rwl&amp;sh=ffa83872

> What happens to the complex global economy, or -for that matter- any item which is produced by multiple laborers? Plus, there's the ECP.

https://raddle.me/f/debate/40469/a-critique-of-anarcho-primitivist-analysis-of-technology

> If my experience in many different shops have told me anything it's that this is completely false.

Weird.

I mean, their primary concern is making money for the capitalists. I get that there are instances in which they can take advantage of legal loopholes or the like to get themselves subsidized regardless of whether or not people buy their shit, but I've always assumed that someone is buying this shit because otherwise, why would they still be being made?

>high profile reckoning of the "my great-great grandma was a cherokee princess" trope.

But it wasn't a reckoning of that trope b/c she actually didn't have anywhere close to the ancestry that she claimed. she wasn't playing on that trope, she was fraudulently using it during admissions, getting into "minority" status professor groups, and oh yeah, pow wow chow .

My g-g-g-grandmother was Cherokee, and i've got about 10x more "indigenous blood" than Warren about 1% (as opposed to warrens 0.01%) , but i've never claimed BIPOC or anything like that. I pass as white because... (hold your breath)... i'm freaking white.

That's the way YOU characterize it, but you've forgotten Biden's May 2012 gaffe in which he virtually forced Obama to become in favor of same-sex marriage. The Left had fully accepted Obama's NON statements up to that time, NOT calling Obama a homophobe, etc.

AFTER that, Obama was forced to join the pander-parade, BUT THEN everybody else (mostly Republicans) was suddenly labelled as being TOTALLY EVIL for refusing to do what Obama had refused to do prior to May 2012.

I was, and remain, tired of such pandering. The Left has a terrible set of double-standards. If they see you as being on "their side", you can just about get away with anything. If they see you as NOT being on "their side", you are simply evil incarnate.

Old saying: "If liberals had no double-standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all!" https://www.amazon.com/Liberals-didnt-Double-Standards-T-shirt/dp/B07NSJ717K

Try amazon smile to donate to charity automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.com/Anarchist-Individualist-Origins-Italian-Fascism-European/dp/0820457175
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^preformed ^^^automatically.

> That's a fact of life. I

that's a fact of urban design predating A/C adoption.

Where is this "my computer or my phone"? I am not afforded any luxuries to expect straight-outta-the-hydroelectric-plant socket.

That's not this works. That's not how any of this works.

to get you started, I might recommend watching this movie. I'm looking for it and haven't found it yet.

Because anyone can whine about loss implying that it's wasteful.

It's another to get legislative clearance or an ethical engineer to say "Go right ahead and make things more efficient" for free, no doubt.

or read this book to understand flow capacity and risk of outages.

Moral particularism, which I take to be the analytic philosopher's way of rebuilding Aristotle's ethical wheel (the wheel of traditional ethics which relies on judgment and the subject's bridge between is and ought) out of analytic normative theory. I find it to be one of the few valuable things I learned from analytic philosophers. [Those who said 'virtue theory' are working with analytics' interpretation of Aristotle, which collapses his theory into a form of consequentialism (eudaimonism), which, if one reads the Nicomachean Ethics, one will see is just a bad interpretation.]

> that's again a fault of the State

The reason statism and capitalism are being conflated is because statism is what in the first place enabled capitalism. Without the slaughter of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (The Age of Capitalist Empires from Debt and The Conquest of America are good reads), slavery (Capitalism and Slavery and A People's History of the World are good reads), and violent suppression of workers' movements (I refer you to The Wealth of Nations and The West and the World), we wouldn't have capitalism. State violence was what sustained capitalism's history. We probably would have had a tumultuous but comparatively functional socialism.

The dichotomy of capitalism and statism is false; recognizing the two as cooperative entities dependent upon one another is not improper conflation.

>opposed to hierarchies that cannot prove their necessity

Who determines necessity and why should I care about what you think is "necessary" if I want something?

>On your second I would like a little more on Austrian economics. I recently graduated with my econ Masters so it should give me some good reading material and new perspective if you don't mind :).

Cool, youd probably not have much trouble getting into the more nuanced works like Human Action by Ludwig von Mises but a pretty short primer would be Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

>Do you have any suggestions as to how this may be remedied?

No, its not a "problem" capitalism cares to deal with, im merely pointing out that it is an inevitability in any economy.

>Finally could you explain how this would occur? It sounds intriguing but I just don't see how :. Please excuse me if I have been vague in any way.

We already have some form of private property norms, the only thing left really is to allow the market to take over or remove the functions of the state.

I LOOOOOOOVE pickpocket magic. Blows my mind everytime and makes me wonder why these guys aren't on the street.

As an admirer of mental techniques and bodily skill I greatly respect stage magic.

I also respect the joy it brings people AND interestingly enough you'll find most stage magacians have strong positive feelings towards psi and the like.

Whole chapter on them in here:

https://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Paranormal-George-P-Hansen/dp/1401000827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1499561365&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=trickster+and+the+paranormal

Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in getting a different vocabulary to talk about this, I suggest reading Felix Guatarri's Chaosmosis, who talks about "ecosophy" or a new type of embodied ecological knowledge. Also I'd talk about the pitfalls of industrial agriculture to human health (I'd really recommend you check out this book): https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Factory-Looming-Industrial-Environment/dp/B004IK9EJQ

>I also have a lot of reservations about Hakim Bey

Yeah....me too. I think that's pretty wise!

>OOO

Cool. I'm glad you find it interesting enough for further consideration. I know I've said this before, but I think it's all about what can be done with the theory, because as it is currently it's sort of weak politically.

Harman wrote these books (http://www.amazon.com/Immaterialism-Objects-Social-Graham-Harman/dp/1509500979/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1458827356&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=graham+harman and http://www.amazon.com/Bruno-Latour-Reassembling-Political-European/dp/0745333990/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1458827387&amp;sr=8-21&amp;keywords=graham+harman) on politics and social theory, but I'm not really crazy about them! but it's a place to start maybe.

From another comment in this thread:

> It's reductionist to call black nationalism 'separatist', or to use your one black nationalist friend as some sort of representative of all black nationalists. There are strains of 'black nationalism' (I'd argue the Black Panther tradition, and the tradition of Malcolm X) which lean towards a sort of black internationalism. There are strains of black nationalism which are for an independent nation in the US, folks who advocate return to Africa, and some folks who advocate creating strong interconnected communities across the US (Chancellor Williams being one of the best theorists of such a possibility). You got it in goddamn anarchist, Stalinist, and capitalist variants.

I highly recommend reading The Last Year of Malcolm X. There's a chapter discussing black nationalism that I think every revolutionary leftist ought to read.

The idea that human societies are somehow innately hierarchical is a flawed one at that. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin put forth the notion that mere cooperation, not competition, is the most predominant engine of evolution. I really hope you give it a read.

The "A"FAQ is not a reliable source, lol. http://freenation.org/a/f13l1.html http://www.amazon.com/Feud-Icelandic-Saga-Jesse-Byock/dp/0520082591

Don't say "I don't believe" say WHY you don't believe something. Your believes have no credence on reality. The stock market is how we determine the value of a company and the work it does, and also how in a truly capitalist society anyone can buy capital, effectively making corporation into worker coops. Prices is how we figure were resources should go. A company with low value doesn't make as much money, has less access to resources, and those resources will be used by better companies. HFT is a weird thing, it seems to be doing nothing more than gaming a too highly regulated system, conditions created by the state/socialism.

There are open sources game that can be actively modified.

There are so many examples. Try doing a little research. If you had with the subjects of medieval Iceland or why the stock market is useful and how it functions I wouldn't have had to type so much.

What are your thoughts on the formation of the Precariat and dissolution of the Proletariat due to the onset of globalization as extrapolated in Guy Standing's book?

>Don't know of any specific. They arbitrated disputes in land clubs, Cattlemen's associations, mining camps and wagon trains.

The not so wild wild west.

http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philosopher-Psychologist-Walter-Kaufmann/dp/0691019835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1428257890&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=walter+Kaufmann+Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGudnwTN_to#t=0m26s

http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philosopher-Psychologist-Walter-Kaufmann/dp/0691019835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1428257890&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=walter+Kaufmann+Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGudnwTN_to#t=0m26s

Well, we took responsibility for the units, the land, and the water and septic system. We paid the electric bill and kept the roads clear. Neither cheap, nor easy. We were providing an honest service.

This community is the rare case where they can squat and build with the blessing of the community. Here's a book about it. And here's a corny ass show about it.

We definitely gave everybody the freedom they wanted. Hell, if they wanted to remodel their trailer into a full blown house we would have paid for the materials. But they almost never took us up on it.

He's probably just there to play court jester on these issues. The effect could be positive in piquing the curiosity of those who would otherwise overlook these matters. But negative in that less discerning folks would just react dismissively towards him. Ultimately, if he is drawing more attention to these issues we should jump in and take over from there.

Amazon.com - Revolution by Russell Brand

If any of you already have an amazon account, you could add to the comments in order to counter any trolls or inform the genuinely curious or interested.