Not really, the true anarchist works from an empathic foundation of holistic consequential acts, the opposite of what TK was about.
Maybe he should have vented in Ukraine since war is the usual mecca for the socio-nihilistic hermits of society.
In short, it can be discussed. Being a Kaczynskian anti-corporatist doesn't necessarliy make you an anarchist. Doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive, of course.
Anarchy without the -ism has grown so much out of the Marxist anti-capitalist obsession. Now it is anarchic for an individual to exchange goods for a profit to survive. A laissez faire capitalism is possible, humanity has been "selling itself" since it climbed out of the trees. But it must be emphasized that these are individual undertakings without monopolies. Healthy competition will make inflation an obsolete concept in a deregulated market.
Laisser-faire capitalism is really just classical liberal capitalism gone full "Austrian Economics" or Ayn Rand, so to say, it is the most hardcore form of neoliberalism.
It's markets only deregulated accordingly to the interests of whoever's into bed with state authorities... soooo that Papa State will move the goal posts for them. Typically what is going on with the Fed, the SEC and Wall Street hedge fund managers these days.
Total deregulation is not something that any state will be bringing, as this would mean the collapse of the PROPRIETARIAN system, and therefore a total economic anarchy, i.e. the most crucial aspect of anarchy. It is not to the interests of any hierarchy whatsoever.
Why anarchy is diverging from this is very simple: anarchy denies the whole value of property, the property that is being used to make a profit.
Landlords are by definition the Greek "archon". When it's not your asshole parasite landlord it'll be the Church, the state, or imperial governor. The history of lanlordship in Canada for instance is all about the monarchy and the Church giving away or selling parts of their lands to private landlords. The US was the state literally pushing for some people to take ownership of lands by force (i.e. the "squatters" policy). There is no single historical instance of private property outside of state power, because that just can't exist without it.
As anarcho I assume my parasitism as sadly a member of the human family of parasites, as we really are the apex parasites, with some predator characteristics. Our drive to dominate is not our "human nature", as power is something always seen as detached from us, that we are going after. True predator creatures like felines and orcas don't care about gaining full domination; they just dominate when that suits them. They take as they please; they don't need to "build capacity" and get more power for (???). The anarchist is fine with this parasitic nature and doesn't mind about predatorial imperatives, like the core one, the quest for power.
I am going to be a landlord and rent out my cave in exchange for bison meat in my stateless deregulated market forest! It is in my nature to take the easiest and most pleasurable path to survival and I am strong enough to own this cave complex!
I came to the cave first, I am indigenous to that cave, it is sacred, I do not welcome colonialists calling my cave their own. I will lwt them stay in one of my caves if they pay me 20kgs of bison meat per week. Very reasonable, they happily pay me my meat, we are all appreciative of eachother's values, needs and history. I an not a dickhead to my tenants. :)
As a cautionary tale. No need to “no true Scotsman” this. See also, ITS. Yes, they left anarchism behind, but they came out of it. And without some kind of centralized anarchist bureaucracy issuing anarchy licenses to people, the definition of anarchist must remain entirely self-determined. For a while he was the most famous anarchist in the world, like it or not, he earned it. Even Harvard didn’t totally disown him…
But what did he do for it... take vocal positions for Palestine or against an aspect of US imperialism? There's nothing in what he ever wrote or said that made him anarchist per se. His legitimate authority can even pass the Hobbes test.
and the worst part? there's some fascinating material in ted's story of the closeted queer savant, poisoned by his own rage and self denial, turned pre-stochastic terrorist lone wolf. he's a tragic figure! it's quite a story, as far as cautionary tales go. 8/10! maybe even 8.5
but like several other famously-always-terrible-discussions-to-have-online ... yeah.
well there's probably a dozen ways but arguably the biggest one?
randomly attempting to maim or murder people (or succeeding at it) because of arbitrary value judgements isn't anarchist, by my values as an anarchist OR a reasonable estimation of the values of a coherent anarchist position that doesn't arrogate to itself the right to deal out death just because reasons.... to somebody who isn't immediately fuking with you in a literal way.
anyone who crosses this line obviously invites a lot of scrutiny, only moreso if they claim to be needing to use lethal force from an anti-authoritarian position.
I will cheerfully die on that theoretically hill but more importantly, propaganda of the deed up to the threshold of murder (not in combat of any kind) is a very old and contested theoretical leap, many smarter people than myself have been debating it for centuries.
the anarchist tradition has a rich history of this but i can simplify all that by just pointing out that whoever makes this wild, large claim that they definitely need to use lethal violence, they would need to prove it's worthwhile, i don't have to disprove their conjecture.
better still, these are almost always the same psyche profiles that will say they never have to justify anything to anyone, which starts to sound a lot like the "divine right of kings" ... so yeah. that's the opposite of anarchy.
the sound of the circle, squaring itself in the mind of a raving lunatic. what about you anon, you think he was an anarchist?
I don’t completely disagree with you, here, and this is a bit of a tangent, but the question of definition interests me, and the persistent use of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy seems a problem. Disallowing any central qualifying authority I’m not sure how there can BE a criterion beyond self-ID - just look how many flavors of “anarchism” are represented here. I feel like it’s inevitably on whoever uses the word to distinguish themselves from those who use it differently.
lack of certainty on a topic like who-dies-just-because-ted-said-so is pretty damning? *shrug*
it's also not "a tangent", it's the ancient core of all politics and power.
might want to actually show up to this one?
don't center your feelings of relativism and give it about 100 times more effort.
start here: if you get your hands blown off by an asshole for no reason, good thing or bad thing?
oh! but if you meant like, your own tangent, i'll walk that part back! i'm still being a condescending dickhead right now but I withdraw that portion! ;)
why would it not?
Not really, the true anarchist works from an empathic foundation of holistic consequential acts, the opposite of what TK was about.
Maybe he should have vented in Ukraine since war is the usual mecca for the socio-nihilistic hermits of society.
In short, it can be discussed. Being a Kaczynskian anti-corporatist doesn't necessarliy make you an anarchist. Doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive, of course.
Anarchy without the -ism has grown so much out of the Marxist anti-capitalist obsession. Now it is anarchic for an individual to exchange goods for a profit to survive. A laissez faire capitalism is possible, humanity has been "selling itself" since it climbed out of the trees. But it must be emphasized that these are individual undertakings without monopolies. Healthy competition will make inflation an obsolete concept in a deregulated market.
Laisser-faire capitalism is really just classical liberal capitalism gone full "Austrian Economics" or Ayn Rand, so to say, it is the most hardcore form of neoliberalism.
It's markets only deregulated accordingly to the interests of whoever's into bed with state authorities... soooo that Papa State will move the goal posts for them. Typically what is going on with the Fed, the SEC and Wall Street hedge fund managers these days.
Total deregulation is not something that any state will be bringing, as this would mean the collapse of the PROPRIETARIAN system, and therefore a total economic anarchy, i.e. the most crucial aspect of anarchy. It is not to the interests of any hierarchy whatsoever.
Why anarchy is diverging from this is very simple: anarchy denies the whole value of property, the property that is being used to make a profit.
Landlords are by definition the Greek "archon". When it's not your asshole parasite landlord it'll be the Church, the state, or imperial governor. The history of lanlordship in Canada for instance is all about the monarchy and the Church giving away or selling parts of their lands to private landlords. The US was the state literally pushing for some people to take ownership of lands by force (i.e. the "squatters" policy). There is no single historical instance of private property outside of state power, because that just can't exist without it.
As anarcho I assume my parasitism as sadly a member of the human family of parasites, as we really are the apex parasites, with some predator characteristics. Our drive to dominate is not our "human nature", as power is something always seen as detached from us, that we are going after. True predator creatures like felines and orcas don't care about gaining full domination; they just dominate when that suits them. They take as they please; they don't need to "build capacity" and get more power for (???). The anarchist is fine with this parasitic nature and doesn't mind about predatorial imperatives, like the core one, the quest for power.
I am going to be a landlord and rent out my cave in exchange for bison meat in my stateless deregulated market forest! It is in my nature to take the easiest and most pleasurable path to survival and I am strong enough to own this cave complex!
So you can see... it's not that hard to be a dickhead somewhere in a forest and claim ownership of the whole fucking Realm.
Nee!
I came to the cave first, I am indigenous to that cave, it is sacred, I do not welcome colonialists calling my cave their own. I will lwt them stay in one of my caves if they pay me 20kgs of bison meat per week. Very reasonable, they happily pay me my meat, we are all appreciative of eachother's values, needs and history. I an not a dickhead to my tenants. :)
As a cautionary tale. No need to “no true Scotsman” this. See also, ITS. Yes, they left anarchism behind, but they came out of it. And without some kind of centralized anarchist bureaucracy issuing anarchy licenses to people, the definition of anarchist must remain entirely self-determined. For a while he was the most famous anarchist in the world, like it or not, he earned it. Even Harvard didn’t totally disown him…
But what did he do for it... take vocal positions for Palestine or against an aspect of US imperialism? There's nothing in what he ever wrote or said that made him anarchist per se. His legitimate authority can even pass the Hobbes test.
relevance? sure! lots of interesting discussion there about many, large topics.
does he pass any reasonable standard of actually being an anarchist? fuck no. not even close.
he's an anarchist like the random naked hippy at the music festival is literally, actually jesus.
I LOL'd at that. I agree.
and the worst part? there's some fascinating material in ted's story of the closeted queer savant, poisoned by his own rage and self denial, turned pre-stochastic terrorist lone wolf. he's a tragic figure! it's quite a story, as far as cautionary tales go. 8/10! maybe even 8.5
but like several other famously-always-terrible-discussions-to-have-online ... yeah.
I own my own cave mofo, I can claim land for myself, I can sell my ass, that doesn't make me a capitalist!
“any reasonable standard of actually being an anarchist”
What does this mean, and how does he fail to fulfill it?
well there's probably a dozen ways but arguably the biggest one?
randomly attempting to maim or murder people (or succeeding at it) because of arbitrary value judgements isn't anarchist, by my values as an anarchist OR a reasonable estimation of the values of a coherent anarchist position that doesn't arrogate to itself the right to deal out death just because reasons.... to somebody who isn't immediately fuking with you in a literal way.
anyone who crosses this line obviously invites a lot of scrutiny, only moreso if they claim to be needing to use lethal force from an anti-authoritarian position.
I will cheerfully die on that theoretically hill but more importantly, propaganda of the deed up to the threshold of murder (not in combat of any kind) is a very old and contested theoretical leap, many smarter people than myself have been debating it for centuries.
the anarchist tradition has a rich history of this but i can simplify all that by just pointing out that whoever makes this wild, large claim that they definitely need to use lethal violence, they would need to prove it's worthwhile, i don't have to disprove their conjecture.
better still, these are almost always the same psyche profiles that will say they never have to justify anything to anyone, which starts to sound a lot like the "divine right of kings" ... so yeah. that's the opposite of anarchy.
the sound of the circle, squaring itself in the mind of a raving lunatic. what about you anon, you think he was an anarchist?
I don’t completely disagree with you, here, and this is a bit of a tangent, but the question of definition interests me, and the persistent use of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy seems a problem. Disallowing any central qualifying authority I’m not sure how there can BE a criterion beyond self-ID - just look how many flavors of “anarchism” are represented here. I feel like it’s inevitably on whoever uses the word to distinguish themselves from those who use it differently.
lack of certainty on a topic like who-dies-just-because-ted-said-so is pretty damning? *shrug*
it's also not "a tangent", it's the ancient core of all politics and power.
might want to actually show up to this one?
don't center your feelings of relativism and give it about 100 times more effort.
start here: if you get your hands blown off by an asshole for no reason, good thing or bad thing?
oh! but if you meant like, your own tangent, i'll walk that part back! i'm still being a condescending dickhead right now but I withdraw that portion! ;)
So anarchism is when good things happen, and bad things happen when no anarchy? Got it… a simple, if not especially useful heuristic!
Yes I meant my own comment was a tangent ;) No idea why I felt the need to spell out something so redundant
Of this website is how individuals use "anarch-", so under that metric, TK wasnt an anarchist.
However, i think his frustrations with technology are very relevant to de-colonialism and the question of autonomy.
yes, because anarchists have interacted with his writings.
just how much relevance is open to discussion though.
Add new comment