ToTW: Confluences and/or Oppositions...

I'm reading the new Ron Sakolsky book, Dreams of Anarchy and the Anarchy of Dreams, on the similarities and overlaps of surrealism and anarchist thought, which is obviously a relationship he's thought about for many years. He doesn't argue that all surrealists are anarchists, or that all anarchists are surrealists, but that there is a venn diagram, and that the overlap is where the yummiest stuff is.

There are plenty who feel that buddhism enriches their anarchism, or that anarchism tastes better with their buddhism. (Pushing this a little further, probably to no good effect, one could argue that environmentalism, race, class, etc are separate but congruous streams that flow with anarchist thought more than they mingle together, but that's probably a less interesting conversation.)

On the opposition side, I know I have been motivated against certain ideas or sets of ideas because they are common among groups of people who I strongly disagree with and/or don't want to associate with. Marxists are the easiest example off the top of my head, but I'm probably also pondering the good rumoer article last week about not trusting the state but also not allowing ourselves to just have knee jerk reactions to any group that might include a few conservative/homophobic/reactionaries...

So, this week's question is about what is your favorite team up? What is the peanut butter (or coconut or coffee beans) that goes with the chocolate of your anarchy?

And/or, what is the opposition that most feeds your anarchist thought? If your dad says he likes something that you liked, does that make you re-think your fondness? If you read it in an IGD article, do you change your mind about it being a good idea? Or, if it's colored Inhabit orange, do you find yourself veering away?

There are 6 Comments

I really enjoying stealing from everything, especially when it comes to literature/theory. Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism was one of the first anarchist texts I read and it was actually the text that led me down the path to post-left anarchism before ever hearing of Bob Black and his critiques. Now a days I still quote bookchin but to put his ideas in a new context, especially his essay "Listen Marxist!" However instead of applying these ideas as they are written, to Marxism, I find it much more interesting to read bookchin against himself and apply these ideas to anarchism, especially how "anarchist organizations" actually have all the same problems as Marxist ones, and how bookchin in many ways was developing a theory against organization generally which is a more nihlist position.

So I don't really shy away from things that are labeled this or that way, whether it's reading left anarchist theory such as bookchin, or examine Fascists tactics, such as how ITS drew inspiration from the Islamic State, to me its about understanding the ideas and how they relate to my own project and understanding, and I think keeping such an openess helps keepingvines ideas from becoming fixed, especially considering how such labels are often used to dissuade people from reading certain texts or participating in certain discussions.

all hail the mighty iconoclast, the philosophical epicurean, the refuser of labels! nice try you incoherent boob

Buddhism & anarchism came into my life at around the same time so in certain ways I don't see them as separate from each other, they are more like two aspects of the same thing. Anarchism is about the liberation of humans from human-forged chains and Buddhism is about the liberation of all beings.

Beyond that, while it is always a good idea to not be ignorant of the provenance of an idea, all things / ideas / theories / methods, are up for expropriation. Because some writers have ways of framing problems that just make more sense, why not use that regardless of whether or not they are anarchist. Or they may use language in a beautiful way that is just more inviting than our run of the mill adolescent screed.

I like my anarchy how I like my coffee, black.
And I'm a snob about it. I scoff at people who try to sweeten or dilute it.

LOL. Nah, I'm kidding! I guess the metaphor doesn't work for me.
Anarchy to me seems like a much more meta thing above and beyond what's mixable.
Like a dynamic or a physical principle.
Is the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics mixable with chocolate? It's already part of it.
Surrealism and Buddhism huh, haven't read about either of those.
Those combinations seem neat, I'm sure anarchy is part of those as well.

"And/or, what is the opposition that most feeds your anarchist thought?"
*Looks for Shawn P. Wilbur's semantic equation
Yeah, an- all the -arche, opposition to that. It's a p big thing, even bigger than anti-civ, it's a big meta thing.

And if a group I dislike, likes something I like, it will annoy me, but not stop me from liking that thing.
Maybe if you bully them they will stop liking the thing and I can have it all for myself.
Just kidding...

If my dad or IGD agreed with me there's no way I wouldn't question why exactly I held the same view. Maybe it would turn out that it's outside the scope of our disagreements (e.g. grass is green), but there's always the possibility that I held the same view for bad reasons (contradiction in my own thought, being stupid) so it's gotta be checked out at least. Also, I get to think more about why and how the people I disagree with think... and isn't that just a fun afternoon on it's own?

Also I'm super tired of people saying "I just take what I want, I just steal ideas, ahahahahaha!"
Like, ok bro I mean first of all we all get selectively inspired by what we read whether level 9999 Anarch or average joe, but also ideas happen in context, and usually with supporting logic as well, and generally if we're leaving some and taking others, it should at the very least be because we value the author in general, but think they dropped the ball on some parts. Less of the opposite situation, of "I hate these people but they said some right things!" Like when is that ever true. I don't know the last time I read a fascist and thought "well you know, they really informed by view on X, I'm glad I read this." At best maybe you learn some factual information that leads to you cross-examine it from other more trustworthy sources, and it leads you to cool places. Or it causes you to question things you thought, and that leads on you a fun journey. But this isn't taking and holding at all, it's allowing yourself to be open to and changed by new information. My sack of change, at least.

Add new comment