TOTW: Revenge

“By and large, we tend to be more aware of the wrongs committed against us than we are of the wrongs we commit against others. We are most dangerous when we feel most wronged, because we feel most entitled to pass judgment, to be cruel. The more justified we feel, the more careful we ought to be not to replicate the patterns of the justice industry, the assumptions of the carceral state, the logic of the guillotine. Again, this does not justify inaction; it is simply to say that we must proceed most critically precisely when we feel most righteous, lest we assume the role of our oppressors.”

Crimethinc., “Against the Logic of the Guillotine”

This essay was written as a critique of the use of the guillotine by anarchists and others as a positive symbol of “uncompromising, bloody revenge” to be exacted against our oppressors, but I think there’s something in the above argument that speaks to how we handle conflict in general, both with people in our lives and with institutions. While most conflicts we participate in won’t take on this level of violence, I think it’s worth questioning how we respond when we feel wronged by someone or something and want revenge.

Do your politics drive your desire for revenge? Do they temper your response to being wronged? Are all options on the table, or do you refrain from, say, calling the cops or engaging in indiscriminate or excessive violence even against your enemies? How do you critique yourself when you feel most righteous?

There are 54 Comments

Crimethinc. should stick to doing vegan barbeques. Terror in a revolutionary struggle isn't about indulging one's precious feelings; it's about rending the other side unable to do further harm. "Those that make revolution half-way only dig their own graves," (Saint-Just) as can amply be seen in the case of Spain from July 1936 to May 1937.

the idea that murder is a political act of defending The Revolution" (tm) is attractive to those who harbor class-revenge fantasies. as if the only -- or most effective -- way to "rending [sic] the other side unable to do further harm" is lopping off their heads. bloodthirsty marxists like keating seem to have forgotten that the domination of any ruling class depends on their access to the means of production. therefore by expropriating their property, revolutionaries render the ruling class impotent. yes, there will be some who will organize a counter-revolution to recapture their property and assets, but if The Revolution is actually on the way to completion, there will be no way to keep property private, since the mythological ideas of value will also be abolished. but keating and others influenced by class-based ressentiment are driven by the notion that the poison of property can only be excised from society by a blood purge. for sure i'm not a pacifist, nor am i arguing for non-violent "revolution" (as if such a thing could exist), but i'm leery of people who say that just murdering enough of the ruling class means that there won't be any more obstacles to the further success of The Revolution. if your revolution depends on the wholesale liquidation of an entire class of person (and who gets to sit in judgment to decide on who gets the chop?) it's time to rethink your professed idea that the result will be the liberation of all of humanity...

“Do your politics drive your desire for revenge?”

As an anarchist I desire revenge against politics, and among many other things. Yet a complete “even stevens” retribution is impossible, so petty attacks will do in the meantime, if any at all.

“Do they temper your response to being wronged?”

Christian morality and humanism and civic indoctrination, domestication…pity, empathy, remorse, cowardice tempers the acts of hostility against governance.

“Are all options on the table, or do you refrain from, say, calling the cops or engaging in indiscriminate or excessive violence even against your enemies?”

Many options are not on the table for many reasons.

First of all, as an anarchist, I wouldn’t call the cops. And can you call the cops on the cops or on the president etc.? “Cops, please come quick, our freedom is being trampled by governance and policing!” “Cops, come quick! The cops are killing people on the street!” “Cops, come quick! There is an economy! And government! And industry!”

Second of all, I’m not so mighty as to be able to produce “excessive violence” to my mighty enemies. Even my best attempt would fall so short of that and it’s not worth my time, an entire lifetime likely sacrificed for one attack of dubious payoff.

Is the ongoing genocide excessive? Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan excessive? Which of the many acts of war throughout history were excessive? Which are considered war crimes and why? What is terrorism and is it excessive if responding in kind? Is murder excessive if responding in kind?

In the end, personal revenge is not about parity in retribution, but personal satisfaction, and I will get my satisfaction elsewhere, through other means, if at all.

“How do you critique yourself when you feel most righteous?”

I never feel righteous, I do what I want beyond right or wrong. I reflect deeply before I act and critique my motives, my means, my perspectives because I think it’s in my best interest and in the interest of those I care about. Because impulsive, unmeasured, imprudent, disproportionate, untimely (whatever, etc., all the ways you can fuck up) actions can be punished with undesired consequences. Yet I will still fuck up whether through carefulness, meekness or inaction, or anything else, and bold impulsive actions are often rewarded as well. In the end the issue is one of (un)foreseeable consequences and not one of legitimacy or justifications.

I think the “logic of the guillotine” is a funny way to describe the mob mentality of crowds frenzied up by populism. Politics backfire on politicians, revolutions happen, nothing changes. The problem is politics, those who act en masse herded by it, not the “excesses” of those who revolt against it, or the inevitable tragedies of petty passional dramas and interpersonal disputes. Well, maybe it’s all inevitable. And if it is, what’s the point in pointing fingers, to lay blame after the fact? Maybe it’s to learn a lesson. Never trust anyone? Only behead the right amount? Peaceful non-violent reform, not killing politicians and then killing those who killed them etc.? Ok, because HISTORY is the process of things that happen, then people read about them AND PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED FOREVER NOTHING KEEPS ON HAPPENING IN SIMILAR MANNER despite progressive differences, iteration, innovation. Idunno.

" if your revolution depends on the wholesale liquidation of an entire class of person ..."

Here we see a typical sanctimonious red herring -- and not red enough, for my liking. Read about the failure of the revolutionary movement in Spain in 1936 -- and a failure from what was initially a point of overwhelming strength -- and the rest of this writers' moral high horse collapses.

It doesn't have to be "the wholesale liquidation of an entire class of person": it will -- and I'm just guessing now -- most likely be enough of the obviously worst among them -- who we can see exist in bounteous numbers in the society as vile as the United States -- to "discourage the others," and render them incapable of further social and political cohesion.

And now, a word from our sponsor:

"...the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries---statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors--- if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows. "
(Bakunin, 'Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism.')

Repeated readings of history show that a social revolution becomes at its most crucial point an exceptionally pitiless zero-sum form of warfare.

“That humanity might be redeemed from revenge: that is for me the bridge to the highest hope and a rainbow after lashing storms.”

-Friedrich Nietzsche (not himself a partisan of liberation, but one of the foremost theorists of the hazards of vengefulness)

Your fantasies—your weakness and incapacity to bring about the events you actually want, in other words—aren't indicative of the only thing one can derive from a reading of history. You fantasize about shedding blood and argue passionately for its importance precisely because you are not doing it. It's pretty pathetic, really.

good take! for me, the real shit isn't so much about conflict skills or lackthereof (although that's a huge problem),

it's more about the giant gap between the toxic power fantasies of the relatively powerless and the reality of power.

adam curtis nails that shit with surgical precision in hypernormalization, when he's extremely wry about "the new radical individualism", showing clips of halfwit musicians and other counter culture folks who barely seem to know where they are, let alone where power lies or the capacity to do anything about anything. he ends the sequence with somebody literally burying their face in the corner of a room and crying, meanwhile, the banks have seized total control without a shot fired. too bad, so sad!

you could have said “curtis alludes to” and no complaints, but there’s nothing “surgically precise” about his approach of almost random collage of images and vague voiceover narrations. it’s interesting because as an active spectator, one can fill the blanks, it can prompt discussion, but it’s not very precise.

it’s also not true that “the banks have seized total control without a shot fired” this has been your most inaccurate statement so far

heh! usually, I do as i please? ok, so is this, creative writing feedback? i'm not turning in my paper for a grade here professor.

ok, sure. shots were and are always being fired in the class war, 99% of which are downward but the point he was making, imo, was about the counter culture having very little combativeness because it disappeared up its own ass instead. i agree with him. he did it with wry wit and scathingly, which I like.

are you not a curtis fan? cuz I don't care? you can direct your critical feedback to him.

omg adam! super fan! remember that interview you did with russel brand where you made it so awkward cuz he was joking around with you on his own comedy show?! SO hot. oozing that bbc basement charisma!

Not only is Kev not doing it, but he's also utterly incapable of ever doing it -- hence his bitter yearning for revenge.

The guillotine is the perfect symbol of the usurpation of revolutionary power, removing it from the hands of "the people" and placing it wholly within the reins of the state. If you're against the state, you therefore must be against the guillotine. It was for a short time an instrument of bourgeois class terror used against monarchists and other counter-revolutionaries. Then it became the tool of the ascendant haute bourgeoisie when they chopped Emile Henry, Ravachol, Vaillant, Caserio, Monier, Soudy, and Callemin. There's no way of rebranding this despicable anti-anarchist tool and symbol .

I agree that "The more justified we feel, the more careful we ought to be not to replicate the patterns of the justice industry, the assumptions of the carceral state, the logic of the guillotine."

We need to pick our battles very carefully when considering deadly revenge. And we need to pick our methods of deadly revenge even more carefully in order to avoid becoming state-like.

Having said that, we must also not equate mere violence with the state. Murder is not the state, murder is something that anyone can do, including the state. Let's not confuse the act with the actor, like those who accuse anyone with violent intentions of being a fascist, or anyone who endorses some form of coercion as a statist.

yeah, which is why the guillotine is a perfect symbol of mechanized, impersonal state violence.

that's literally what it was and even its use as a symbol seems to strongly imply "remember when we briefly stole the keys to your state violence bro?! yeah, the streets were awash in blood so uhm ... better not get caught sleepin in the throne room again bro."

it's a weird flex to try and reconcile with the anarchist position, no doubt

“…and let’s not confuse anyone who endorses some form of coercion as a statist“.

Why not? What’s the difference? Is it a difference of scale? Of layers of separation/mediation? At what point does coercion go from “anarchist” to “statist”?

Is coercion “anarchist” if it’s just you and your gang doing the coercing (little to no mediation) and “statist” if you outsource the coercing to a large and well-organized group like the police (mid to high mediation)?

I think that could be an interesting discussion and so I hope the answer is something more satisfying than… “Well, just take our word for it: we’re the ‘good guys’ and the people being coerced, for wtv reason, are the ‘bad guys’, etc…”

i have no illusions about anyone being "the good guys" but looking at the relative power of two groups mutually attempting to coerce each other will tell you most of the story.

state coercion can't be squared with an anti-state position, obviously but coercion is just a tool, so it can be used by anyone for good or ill or somewhere in between. as long as you don't mistake the tool for the user or fail to notice when power is onesided, there's no reason to be confused by this stuff.

Two people get into a fight at a bar. They are coercing each other. Is that a state?

Try thinking it through without just reacting from the lizard part of your brain.

it's called an analysis of power, perhaps anon can borrow somebody else's for a minute?

Tell me more about this ‘analysis of power.’

So you’re fine with coercion (the inflicting of one’s will over another) so long as it’s ‘anarchist’, meaning: unmediated, direct and on a small scale, got it.

as I said, it's a tool. are you fine with a hammer or nails? depends what you use them for!

an analysis of power is (among other things) how we avoid making the embarrassingly stupid, sweeping categorical statements that old grumps like myself are far too familiar with: anything I don't like is the same as cops, freedom is whatever I say it is, any time anyone doesn't like me or what I do, it's cuz they're "using coercion" and so on and so on ...

in reality, things like capacity for self defence would include things like a conditional and proportionate use of coercion or force.

I'll avoid calling the cops & some reasons of becoming an Anarchist is fueled by being wronged by the mandatory law having to go to school (or facing fines and being separated from your family in extreme case.) and having felt a torturous amount of boredom in school.

As for violence... I'd like to keep it to self-defense. That self-defense includes killing others, if there's a threat for my life.

Response to 14:12

Wrong again. All evidence suggest that Guy Fawkes wanted to replace a brutal Protestant despotism with an even more brutal Catholic one -- bu the Guy Fawkes mask is readily seen and understood everywhere as now standing for something that has nothing to do with that. Is 14:12 now going to throw themselves under the bus to stop this?

Similarly the guillotine is universally perceived as an implacable tool for the historical extinction of an exploiter class. Go with the flow! Literally ten people know who Andre Soudy was, and with 14:12's communication skills that's never going to change. Back in the day there were politically worthless pedants who dissed the Makhnovists for their assertion of class against revolutionary terror. 14:12 is of a piece with this.

15:51 (or should I just call you kev for short?), your expressions of fake anti-intellectualism (the better to embed yourself into a class your definitely weren't born into and from which you remain fully alienated -- hence your singular lack of success at being recognized as a proletarian warrior... haha, as if) continue to betray your empty fantasies of class revenge. The guillotine didn't inaugurate the extinction of anything -- except the power that has been in the hands of "the people" before it was channeled and usurped by the incipient ruling class of anti-monarchists. The fact that the guillotine didn't eradicate the exploiting class is proved by the decades of Restoration and its continual use as a means of bourgeois defense against "the rabble" that included the anarchists I mentioned above.

The Guy Fawkes mask didn't mean anything for a couple hundred years until the graphic novel "V for Vendetta" made it hip. Thats not really how revolutionary symbols work, and you know it, mister bad faith wannabe homicidal marxist maniac. keating like a motherfucker

15:51 (or should I just call you kev for short?

I suggest you call the police. That's more consistent with your style. And your blathering about "revenge" is a testament to your inability to competently wage an argument against an opponent. Nothing I've written or said, here or anywhere else, can be attributed to a desire for "revenge." You want to sound lofty and Nietzschean as a smokescreen concealing the fact that you have nothing of substance to say, you say it poorly, and you take too many words to say it.

ahahahahah, Pot? Meet Kettle. this fool 16:49 can call it whatever he likes, like "historical eradication of the exploiter class" while the pacifist philosophizer can call it "class revenge" but it amounts to the same thing: some self-appointed or elected representatives deciding on the targeted use of capital punishment against whoever the Enemy of the People is this week. the issue is capital punishment, not the mechanism of carrying it out. I suspect the pacifist philosophizer would be opposed to the time-honored Stalinist method of a bullet in the base of the skull just as he's against the guillotine. but the guillotine has a longer history of frightening monarchists I suppose, which is why fake radicals prefer to use it. But I agree that the machine can't be separated from its use historically against any and all enemies of the state regardless of who holds power. It's a statist tool, not one of popular justice. That's why Kev likes it so much -- he wants to rule over a state with the dozen other ultra-left marxists in the world who also thirst for eradicating the exploiting class, and who haven't been forced to conclude that his presence is thoroughly toxic to any radical project he comes in contact with. you guys should get a room.

i’ve never committed revenge in my life. when people say revenge, they usually equate it with justice, but justice is also equated with courts and the state’s monopoly on violence.

in my daily life, conflict has not escalated to the level of either revenge or the law getting involved. when i feel wronged by someone, it has never required an action in response. at most, you tell them it bothered you, but often you just make a mental note and carry on.

what is the relationship between this everyday experience and guillotines? there is systematic abuse that goes on unabated. the guillotine would be like a punitive justice system applied to the perpetrators of the status quo, instead of a framework of transformative justice which would attempt to transform society instead of blaming a few individuals as scapegoats to its problems.

instead of guillotines, what would be the symbol? fire to the prisons. is abolishing prisons and transforming society for the better, revenge, or healing?

is your proposal one of a protracted sublimation of rage into innocuousness? one of merely issuing the commandments "thou shall not kill" and "love thy brother"?

White supremacists trapped for all eternity on a Black-owned sugar plantation whose owners have NO mechanical farming aids.

More generally, the wheel is round, and what comes around goes around.

I would question the premise that what comes around goes around. There's gravity, evolution, privilege, power and plain probability which have negated this assumption. I know its a concise and minimalist solution which dodges the tragedy of fate,,,there will always be suffering, one may as well embrace it.

Is that the fascist who opened fire on our folks over the weekend may have literally had to pay a pound of flesh for that shooting. Reports are one of ours returned fire and "got a chunk" of the shooter. More symmetrical f the shooter had bern killed but still the shooter reaping some of what they sowed.

Tit for tat, or an eye for an eye has the appearance of symmetry, but look more carefully at the mirror.

Karma is a spook, just look around, maybe if everyone lived totally connected to eachother and fully exchanged their feelings and possessed nothing beyond their neccessities. But one person may possibly never have the desire to avenge because they have nothing to attract deeds worthy of revenge. What defines worthiness, is it wealth, assets, or a body?
Possibly even the concept of revenge is a spook.

revenge is one of the names given to the religious principle of messianic violence, revolution as an apocalypse, as judgement day, and after which the kingdom of heaven on earth will last for a thousand years or something

Interesting point. Oh no, I'm just getting this thought as I write, that the class revolution is really a religious judgement day in an economic dimension, and that their eschatological heaven represents a life with free food and accomodation and no debt.

Revenge, tale as old as time, one of the main satisfying cliché plot lines. The basis for many stories, myths, legends, movies, etc. some people need to give their life a narrative structure in order to derive meaning and purpose from it. But if we use the example of one the recent box office hit franchises built on this trope, "John Wick", we can see how this way of structuring your life has some pitfalls. For both parties involved, arguably they'd had all been a lot better off if they had cut their losses early on in the first film, but now it has escalated to absurd proportions of a world war of the underworld. Sure, it was more than "just a dog", sure John Wick killed a lot of goons and broke a lot of rules, but it all builds up to an ego-driven cycle of self-destruction for both parties. In real life, it's hard to sustain the rage for that long, not to mention wage war against the whole world by yourself. It's just the archetype of the overblown rage male fantasy hissy fit. You also have the example of "Kill Bill" in which when Bill explains himself to Beatrix by saying "I just overreacted" and something along the lines of "this is just what happens when you mess with a murderous bastard" so in a way, Bill sees his actions as revenge. But even he in his egomaniacal villain speech recognizes (or feigns?) what he's actually doing; when he shoots Beatrix in the head he tells her something like "this is not me being sadistic, this is me at my most masochistic" acknowledging that this extreme form of harming others, specially those he ostensibly loves, is also an extreme form self-harm. Of course, that main revenge story line is that of Beatrix herself. And we can ask ourselves, is it reasonable to expect or ask anything else from someone who's life is stolen from them and is injured and insulted in such humiliating ways? Well, typically people don't resort to such spectacular revenge, but either break down living a sad life in the shadow of the trauma, or seemingly miraculously live more or less well-adjusted lives. But had Beatrix any other recourse to recover her daughter and live the life that she wanted? Someone could say that she should not feel ownership over her daughter, since she didn't raise her, that she could have just escaped and moved on, disappeared after waking up from the coma and only killed in self-defense those that pursued after her, that she could have found another record store to work at and another mate to have another child. But such contrivances to plot and character would only reflect a strong aversion and disgust towards revenge and violence, one that not all people share, and specially not one that those whose skilled trade is that of killers and butchers, share. It's also curious to note the appetite and blood-lust the general public shares when they crave and watch violent movies and combat sports, etc.

~*~* living well is the best revenge ~*~*

My definition of revenge in a political context is more aligned with this shitty cliché than any social revolution or historical exchange of power. While a primary driver for how I hope to live my life is in opposition to the everyday injuries imposed on myself/others, I’m also paranoid of falling into the trap of politics: to be reduced to only an “opposite” whose reaction is as expected as it is ineffective and/or contradictory. Many acts of revenge I see from anarchists feel more like a failure of imagination than anything else. If I’m reacting, I’d prefer it be on my terms as much as possible (easier said than done). To be clear, my goal isn’t some unmediated response that truly captures who I am, either. I understand there are assumed limits. My identity and responses are constructed within a very unimaginative and unrelenting social context—a reality I can’t undo by chopping its head off. That said, escaping this normalization as much as possible is a solid starting point. I intend to stretch out my revenge and reflect on it continually to delay recuperation. If the common belief is that “revenge is a dish best served cold,” I’d prefer not waste my time cooking in hopes my enemies starve :)

If the art of revenge is the art of living a good life, which approach do you take for living a good life? Do you take the advice Seneca gives in "On the Brevity of life"? Or perhaps a more hedonistic approach to being a bon vivant?

"My identity and responses are constructed within a very unimaginative and unrelenting social context—a reality I can’t undo by chopping its head off."
Yup, there's something radically noble about melting into the bourgeois landscape and being indistinguishable from everyday normies. I call it radical centrist camouflageism, and if one considers the natural world, its one of the most efficient and sustainable way to survive, reach reproduction age, and leave a legacy for your own species.

Besides homo-machiavellius-bourgeoisus, homo-formicidae have successfully colonized all continents and out number homo-sapians and def homo-machiavellius-bourgeoisus

Are crimethinc pacifists and is that article direct at social media users? There's a bunch of twitter links in the article. I'm pretty sure the Paris Commune used a guillotine to kill a military lieutenant or two, or maybe I'm thinking of something else. The guillotine was designed by Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, to be a merciful and relatively pain free way of executing someone. I think he "invented" it after witnessing a botched decapitation/execution. Before they used an ax for aristocrats and drawn out strangulation via hanging (prior to the English "innovation" of the neck breaking technique) for the lower classes. Many weapons used to end someone's life have been created by the state and/or pre-modern states/feudalistic societies to be used against the inhabitants of an area if they didn't behave as told.

Do politics drive my desire for revenge? No. I try my best to stay clear of politics, but it's nearly impossible. It's ironic I'm posting on this site while proclaiming I try to avoid politics. I only really think of revenge if someone did something against me that I didn't enjoy.

The picture made me angry and tired and I don't have the energy to think more.

the alternative to revenge is assertive, clear, straightforward, yet compassionate communication and attentive listening, a patient and caring response that does not fall into passive aggressiveness nor resignation into letting people walk all over you, disrespect your boundaries or deprive you of your needs

anarchist don’t propose guillotines as solutions, but instead aspire to sabotage all machinery of mass slaughter. pacifists love eco-defense sabotage because it’s non-violent, vegans love sabotage of farms, hunting spots and slaughterhouses. it’s not resentful revenge, it’s compassionate infrastructure decommissioning

never will the nasty bitter feelings of murderous hatred stain the heart of loving life affirming anarchists. specially when such emotions cloud judgement and leads to delirious fantasies that resemble power trips, leading to means, ends and allies that are incompatible with anarchist principles and ethics

this reminds me of the slogan “no justice, no peace”, when really the opposite is true: justice is the punitive logic of the guillotine, as long as there is justice, there will not be peace

someone might counter “but there are other forms of justice other than punitive”, but if heard in the context of people protesting that cops who murdered in the line of duty will get off free, then it means that they should get punished. “defund police” or “abolish police” or “abolish prisons” better would aim at the systemic aspect of the issue. but one would hardly expect such expressions to be those most common among people feeling rage and indignation at the frequent racist murders by police. such anger is often expressed in the form of riots. anarchists critique liberals for clutching pearls at looting. riots are a form of lashing out and venting desire for revenge but do not usually culminate in the logic of the guillotine. most rioters are mostly not aspiring revolutionaries, neither authoritarian communists nor anarchists, but mostly people who would rather see the justice system “be fixed” and “work as it should”.

Wouldn't intent and reasoning be what determines whether something is revenge and resentful, regardless of what you call it? People can be really really petty. I don't think assertiveness would prevent people from thinking about revenge or seeking it out. Ethics sounds incompatible with anarchism and I cant imagine what anarchist ethics would entail.

yes timtroll, it would and yes, they can!

ethics however, is compatible with many views on anarchism. in fact, most older anarchist theory was heavily reliant on ethical or moral frameworks, to a fault in some cases. but why would your inability to imagine something have anything to do with it?

Older anarchist theory relied on ethical or moral frameworks? Okay, and? I didn't mention morals, btw. Your statement lacks substance. It's odd you weren't slightly more specific on which views of anarchism is compatible with ethics, which "ethical or moral frameworks" the mystery anarchist theory were "heavily reliant on," and which anarchist theorist. Normally when people pull the "ackchyually," they follow it up with something specific. So, try again. For instance, what were these systematic duties, rights, rules and values of right and wrong did the theory and theorist rely on that's also compatible with these unnamed views of anarchism? And/or what were the societal norms or individualized of right and wrong were the mystery theory based around when the older anarchist was alive and compatible with what views of anarchism? Please tell me which older anarchist theorist too. Excuse my verbosity.

I do believe you were attempting to inform me of something I may not know and were trying to form a coherent thought, but something prevented you from completing it. You can call me Tim, Tim Gnome, Tim Spazz, T-Clown, T-Knob, Tim Ejit or anything more creative than timtroll. Timtroll isn't a very good burn. I mean, on here you use the term troll towards anyone you decide to inflict your muddled mumblings on.

Tim,

Seriously. Please learn what fucking words mean before you rant on.

Start here:
1. Ethics
2. Anarchism

Your entire previous rant is based upon a personal misunderstanding and flawed idea of what these words mean. Learn the meaning of the words first.

This will count for 75% of your final grade.

yeah Tim, all due respect and best wishes on your journey but lets not assume I give a shit or that I'll bother doing a bunch of your homework for you, mmk? i'm a relatively unpleasant person, definitely not invested in whether my posts meet with your opinions about "substance". it's called a shit-post? picture me flinging it at you from up in my tree

Thanks. My comment and questions were specifically for lumpy to support their assertions concerning anarchism and ethics. Obviously lumpy had severe difficulties doing that. It's probably best if I just ignore them as they lack knowledge about things concerning anarchism. Anyways, I stand by my statement that ethics is incompatible with anarchism due to the systematic nature of it. I don't view ethics and morality as the same thing, and didn't mention morality in my comment. Kropotkin seems to be mostly criticizing the codes of morality established by the church, capitalism, and the state in that piece. It looks like I or anyone should actually read Kropotkin's Ethics: Origin and Development and re-read "Mutual Aid" if interested in Kropotkin's thoughts on ethics.

^ see mods? fukin told you. troll sock puppet ;)

*makes punchable face of that guy who fukin TOLD you so*

hi, this is the anon of the timestamp you're addressing. yes, those are interesting points to raise and to question. people are indeed pretty petty. they can also be really sarcastic. i thought this line would give it away "never will the nasty bitter feelings of murderous hatred stain the heart of loving life affirming anarchists." i agree, it's a fantasy to imagine a world without revenge, but it comes up way less often than hyperbolic rhetoric would have you think. anarchist ethics usually boil down to "for everything good, against everything bad" but while also continuously questioning itself, making the list of good things become shorter, while the list of bad things becomes longer.

Add new comment