Add new comment

I think it's really interesting the mention of how anarchism as a "counter culture" often leads to anarchists no longer being anarchists when they finally give in to the desire for the main culture, for the civilized/capitalist life. This is something I've been thinking about a lot and exploring in my own writing, and identify my own ideas of anti-civ/primitivism/lifestylism/anarchism with a sort of asceticism, which while my hope now is that this asceticism will grow (rejecting even more of civilized life) this sort of recuperatibe desire is very interesting to me and I wonder how the question of age will affect that aspect of my thinking/life since I think other people would consider me a young person.

As for the discussion of Discourse I found the perspective very interesting since it is extremely counter to my experiences as again someone others may consider young. I discovered the term anarchist maybe 7 years ago on Tumblr with someone defining the term anarcho-communism (i had considered myself a communist for a least a year prior) and from there I feel I have constantly been discovering more and more new discourses, from building that first sort of critique of the state, to learning about unionizing and organizing with unions and doing activism based on the prison abolitionist school of thought, later learning about eco-anarchist struggles which then turned me on to the texts Desert which felt like a monumental shift for me. Even today (though I'm still behind by a year or two) reading recent publications like Atassa, or Baedan I see extremely interesting conversations happening (and outside of social media!) that spur that same kind of impression of importance Desert left with me (and seems to have left many others).

Another difficerence in experience has been mine with social media, though I'm largely off it now due to bans, social media has been in my experience a great place to participate in discourse in one way while many people discuss the sort of cyclical nature of it (such as the recurrence of "kink at pride" discourse) I think it actually these sort of "dull" seeming premises for conversation that can really allow for them to be recontextualized and "radical" or more contemporary or more interesting conclusions I think can emerge from these sort of boring repetitive topics. In a way I think this is kind of a uphill battle with social media since it is my opinion these sorts of topics are popularized because their conclusions are quite recuperative (such as the desexualization of queer people) but I think reaprppriating these topics on these ways can combat this recuperative force in some conversations, which I think especially helps new people who are exploring these ideas for the first time. Though it can also be harder for them to understand from their current frame (think of someone just getting into anarchy being told its anti-social chaos) but cam be helpful for those who are interested in pushing this notion of "ruthless critique of all that exists" as far as possible.

As well in my experience with social media it seems the sort of "drift" of some of these spaces are happening extremely rapidly (and cyclicly) which is leading to a lot of interesting splits on topics. For example my final leave from Twitter was a split between pro-pedophilia anarchists, Marxists, primitivists etc and anti-pedophiles (of every ideology). And this split has influenced my thoughts on "justice" (extending critiques of carceral logic to restorative/transformative justice), consent, youth liberation, anti-identity/anti-humanism, anti-moralism not to mention the actual topic itself, which at least for myself has turned me on to a historical position I was unaware of.

So I think in a way these drifts or splits are not only helpful but I think with this notion of "critique" it is required, since at least in my mind this critique means we will always be drifting further and further away from where we were yesterday.