Add new comment

All this really rubs me the wrong way.
Basing all relationships or "encounters" in a model of minimal paternalism/maternalism (not implying patriarchy or matriarchy, giving that much benefit of doubt)?
Why is there a need to construe a "basic social unit"?
Why the desire to base a project on notions of possession, property, domain, conjugal couple, organ of justice, and contract?
I find these terms repulsive. It would be a tedious enough proposition to go through the motions of critiquing and demolishing each of them, would never even consider basing anarchy on any of them.
Why does children as property -making a point to exclude "parent-splainers", (why not in terms of parenting, defer to the parents?)- and mentioning marriage, the conjugal couple, and family -"But let’s not waste any time stripping away the heteronormative aspects of his theory of the family"- make appearance as talking points or prominent pit stops?

Recovering from an initial recoiling at wtf am I reading, even to consider the first premise of:

"Guarantism, in that sense, would just be the consequence of getting mixed up with other people, with associations, with the world around us, etc. To draw on the egoist elements that we have been incorporating into this construction, we’re talking about safeguarding others because we have not just seen ourselves in them, but have joined our might (puissance) to theirs, made them in some sense « our own » — a sort of equation perhaps not so alien to Proudhon’s thought.

And we had interpreted the familiar passage in roughly these terms:

Two individuals meet, recognize themselves in one another, note the additional benefit that would result for both from their concerted efforts, and as a consequence safeguard equality, which essentially means economy. This is the whole social system: an act of mutual recognition, which results in a collective potential."

Once you are born into this world mediated by capital (and pointing this out is not a default to communism) you are not on equal footing with it, capital is valued above life and as a consequence does not safeguard equality which essentially means economy. All this to say we're already "mixed up" in these subjugating relationships with people. What sense does it make to imagine a foundational moment of encounter of individuals on equal footing forming a guarantist social contract, conceptualized then as a collective force as the resultant anarchy of the relationships between the basic social units?
This is akin to imagining anarchy, instead of "After the Revolution", "After the Constitution" or whatever the name for this social contract is?

I might not be making sense, but let's see if I understand: this conception of anarchy rests on the success of reforming the basic social unit somehow into an organ of justice, a non-patriarchal communal-ish mutualist-ish re-envisioned family? Establishing a town and an economy with multiple basic social units behaving in accordance to proudhonian principles, which is like some rational actor in game theory and economics, but more old-timey and maybe more leeway for it to make more sense?

I don't see how making a bavarian village diorama out of legalistic 19th century big brain on an armchair natural law social science and economistic language has anything to do with... anything i'd like to be doing at least.