Topic of the Week: Can We Live Real Lives as Anarchists?

  • Posted on: 15 February 2016
  • By: thecollective

As anarchists living in an consumer-driven industrial world where so much of our lives is dominated or facilitated by the State or what we may call Capitalism, what can we consider to be real in our lives, if anything? Are we truly in a Society of the Spectacle, or perhaps lost in the depths of post-modernity or some similar state of extreme alienation that makes the real impossible? Are we truly separated from nature, or are these all simply labels and empty theories that can only attempt to frame the chaotic and complicated world around us? What sort of actions, relationships, projects, discussions, experiences, ideas, group or family dynamics (or anything else) seem to feel genuine or authentic to us? Is it the way you eat or obtain food, have sex, meet strangers or form connections, face enemies, create things you love, destroy things you despise, or something else entirely? What gives those things real qualities or drives you to engage in them as anarchists? Or is anything that could be considered real reserved for revolutionary moments or aspirations, and how would such moments or ideals be obtained?

category: 

Comments

we are children of capitalism, and we accepted new theory, idea, and we need time to change ourselves, our daily habits and way of thinking from capitalism. although some of us grew up in system like Cuba, state capitalism were people had big level of solidarity, spending time together, and before 30 years, yes, in such system we didn't have developed capitalism and marketing as people living in the west. I believe that Yugoslavians before 30 years are not the same as Americans, in the sense of materialism, egoism, craziness for products, etc. Yugoslavia had middle class life, not extremely poor like Romania and other ex-socialist countries, consequently, we didn't suffer for products, we had normal life and even if you can't buy something, it doesn't matter. Even today when i see Romanians they are crazy for money because they were poor and they suffer for soooo many products they can't buy.
But again, there is difference between craziness for products as a consequence of marketing, and craziness for products as a consequence of human dignity: why they have something more than me? even children ask such question, it is natural, to have human dignity and to be equal with other people/children around you.

east Europe is now the same shit as west Europe, I speak about the time before 30 years. now we are alienated because we run for money, trying to buy many products we see and we would like to have it. people are now many years under influence of capitalist system with aggressive marketing, of course, they are alienated from the nature too, when they are running for money.
people are trying to be happy, some of them try to live comfortable life and some of them as anarchists are trying something else. but in the end, it is about being happy, satisfied with yourself, etc. therefore rebels are usually people unhappy in the present system, because of many reasons, from theoretical anarchy to facing problems in daily life in capitalism. there are and anarchists from rich families, they just became friends with anarchists and they follow them. but at the first sign of repression, they give up from militancy. they have too much good life to put their ass in the fire.

all of this is important for us, just we can't succeed to realize all we want in our anarchist way: eat or obtain food, have sex, meet strangers or form connections, face enemies, create things you love, destroy things you despise,...

anarchists should find balance, we should create communities but we should also fight against system, many many squatters or communities working on their own land, forget to fight against the system. imagine you have 3 hectare of land and you work many months on it, how much of your time you spent for fighting? so, people work, they enjoy living together and they forget to fight against the present system. I think we should find balance, but it depends again from our level of egoism, we didn't grow up in the same society and we have different understanding of verbal solidarity, concrete mutual help, how much I will care about other people, etc.

The CIA propaganda machine as well as the demise of Soviet socialism didn't have a s a on Yugoslavia, which was independent enough as a republic to require ultra-violent internal destabilization followed by foreign military offensive to be taken down, where most Soviet republics just crumbled out of their own misery and shitty totalitarianism,

The West, you're next in line. Though I don't know how long it's gonna take or how painful it's going to get.

imputing "rebellion" to be a characteristic practice of an anarchist points to a 'being-based' [reason-based] view of 'what is real'

philosophers split as to the nature of reality; some believe that material beings are real, and others believe that material beings are 'schaumkommen' ['appearances': variations in a relational flow] and that 'relations are all there is' and that humans are relational forms in a transforming relational continuum [i.e. much more than 'human beings']. as Emerson contends in 'The Method of Nature', humans are relational features in the flow who transmit influences from the vast and universal to the point on which our/nature's genius can act', ....adding that we tend to dumb ourselves down by imagining we are local 'beings' with internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

as Whorf, Bohm, Nietzsche and others have similarly noted, Western civilization is a dumbed-down society which has elevated 'being' and 'reason' into an unnatural precedence over 'relations' and 'intuition'. this is not a popular thing to bring up in this forum because many forum participants are strong advocates of picturing the world and their self in terms of reason-driven beings [getting out of capitalism, to them, means replacing the capitalist reasoning system with a better reasoning system, and NOT to restore the natural primacy of intuition over reason].

the unnatural elevating of reason and moral judgement over intuition and balancing is where 'rebellion' comes from. the rebel depicts both himself and his adversary as 'reason-driven beings', believing [making the moral judgement] that his own behaviours are driven and directed by the right reasons and his adversary's behaviours are driven and directed by the wrong reasons.

the taoist anarchist and the indigenous anarchist do not see themselves as reason-driven beings [doers of deeds] but as relational forms within a transforming relational continuum who are "transmitters of influence from the vast and universal to the point on which their/nature's genius can act". they do not 'rebel' against 'the system' because 'the system' does not exist for anyone other than 'believers in the system'. what exists is 'relations', as in a crowd of people [relational forms in a transforming relational continuum] who, arguably because of their subject-verb language, see themselves as reason-driven beings who understand 'community' as the practice of installing the 'correct' reason-and moral-values-based practices in everyone in the collective, including themselves.

the challenge for the taoist anarchist and indigenous anarchist is not, therefore, to 'rebel' and 'overthrow' the the dominating majority, but to catalyze relational transformation that subsumes the delusion and brings about an 'awakening' wherein experience-based intuition and the cultivating of balance and harmony is restored to its nature precedence over reason and moral judgement based reward and punishment [the latter, an inherently subjective and divisive practice].

if your sons and daughters fall under the spell of a religious cult that starts to impose its practices on everyone, including you, your natural 'first responder' action would NOT be 'to rebel against them', but rather to awaken them from their delusions. the black bloc's act of smashing bank windows, which awakens people to how the delusion has us come to value and protect property more than human welfare, makes the black bloc 'agents of transformation' rather than rebel doers-of-deeds. people 'get this at a gut level', and it has real transformative influence.

this is more like 'satire' than 'rebellion'. 'satire' is proof by 'reductio ad absurdum' and it is transformative rather than eliminatory. why not target the liberation of people from delusion, as in the black bloc tactics, instead of treating them as lost causes and rebelling and overthrowing them?

which would we prefer to put first in guiding and shaping our actions; doer-deed rebellion against the 'capitalist/socialist system', ... or cultivating transformation of ourselves and our brothers so as to dispel delusionary beliefs based on inherently deficient reason and moral judgement?

Everything is too controlled already. We live in a prison. My escape is in a bottle of booze. That's "real"

"As anarchists living in an consumer-driven industrial world where so much of our lives is dominated or facilitated by the State or what we may call Capitalism, what can we consider to be real in our lives, if anything? Are we truly in a Society of the Spectacle, or perhaps lost in the depths of post-modernity or some similar state of extreme alienation that makes the real impossible? Are we truly separated from nature, or are these all simply labels and empty theories that can only attempt to frame the chaotic and complicated world around us? What sort of actions, relationships, projects, discussions, experiences, ideas, group or family dynamics (or anything else) seem to feel genuine or authentic to us? Is it the way you eat or obtain food, have sex, meet strangers or form connections, face enemies, create things you love, destroy things you despise, or something else entirely? What gives those things real qualities or drives you to engage in them as anarchists? Or is anything that could be considered real reserved for revolutionary moments or aspirations, and how would such moments or ideals be obtained?"

As always, the version of anarchism put forward by www.anarchistnews.org, and by extension today's larger US anarchist subculture that generates projects like anarchistnews.org, is a passive drop-out culture trip. There is no sign here of any willingness or propensity on the part of self-styled anarchists subculture denizens to engage in social struggles in the larger world outside of their various safe spaces that might have some prospect for bringing about the society-wide transformation that "real" anarchists of the Goldman and Berkman and 'Cronacia Souversiva' stripe involved themselves in. This is occurring at a time in the development and decomposition of US capitalist society that is more promising for near-term large scale liberatory social struggles than any other point in the history of the United States.

No one who has anything to offer to a society-wide struggle for the abolition of the state and capitalism is primarily motivated by a need for their ostensible revolutionism to solve their personal problems or satisfy their immediate personal needs. This is a United States of America consumer society notion of what matters most in life, and a wholly U.S. of A. type of infantile narcissism.

Also, the irrelevance and frankly toxic character of this brand of "anarchism" doesn't reflect on the strength and limits of what could simplistically be called "real" anarchism elsewhere in the world, and in the distant past in the United States. An examination of what was valid about "real" anarchism," and its limits as well as the aspects of it that are still valid today, is a wholly different matter.

Hah, what? Molotovs, joke on, against the most powerful military force ever realized in the history of the known universe, dream on rebel!

heh, your reply wandered off on it's own I see

Lololutz yes shit happens glad you read it and absorbed its irrelevancy lol

"Propagating ideas is better than nothing"

Anarchy is expressed not propagated. It's better for it to be inert and dormant then propagated. If anarchists
want to be propagandan puppets then that's their bed to make. Anarchs on the other hand...

your use of the word then, sir, is -for once- used in an interesting context!
but, what the hell are you on about? like, obsessed with negation or what?

of course propagating ideas is better than nothing!!! without basic propagation, nothing is all there would be! how could anarchy be inert or dormant?

anarchy is expressed in the prevalent organic condition of all our beautiful relations which would cease to occur without the basic propelling impetus of being !!! bang the gong ! get it on!

there's no anarch(y) in a vacuum.

Are not the same thing. Propagation always involves some form of ellective position or proposed solution.

What you're saying need only apply to expression. There is nothing relational about propagation.

expression causes propagation, inevitably
abstraction is a quality inherent to all creation

what about propagation is non-relational?
does the ball, having been struck not propagate a reciprocal effect in the field?

Propagation <--- as in planting seeds. Look at the etymology of the word ziggy, you're just striking a pose as always. Look at me, semantics and contrarian masturbation! Blah blah blah fuck off.

It involves a linear movement of seed and planter and the usual Western language constructions. Anarchy is an immanentn process that does not need propagated linearity.

propagation isn't linear but reciprocal.
it doesn't imply a local author but a dynamic (immanent) process.

Action not expression creates propagation numbnuts!

same thing, buttface

i agree with the 'global social transformation' versus 'local revolution' point but the USA point seems like the same old 'categorizing' tactic that has been inhibiting the overall social transformation that you are advocating; i.e.you use generalization and categorization here to divide and denigrate;

"As always, the version of anarchism put forward by www.anarchistnews.org, and by extension today's larger US anarchist subculture that generates projects like anarchistnews.org, is a passive drop-out culture trip. There is no sign here of any willingness or propensity on the part of self-styled anarchists subculture denizens to engage in social struggles in the larger world outside of their various safe spaces"

nationalism divides and conquers to hold people in its authoritarian grip by having people believe that they are a unique and superior category; i.e. 'categorization' which defines 'identity' based on 'common properties' is the general psychological premise that underlies the cultivating of elitist [and inferior] identity, and you are using it bigtime.

if your remarks are intended to encourage us towards;

An examination of what was valid about "real" anarchism," and its limits as well as the aspects of it that are still valid today, is a wholly different matter".

then you are going about it in a strange way, ... kind of like an 'old-fashioned parent' complaining about 'infantile narcissism' in his children, rather than accepting that it is 'all in the family' and therefore cultivating overall 'socialization'. in other words, yours is another brand of narcissism; "why can't others be more like me?"

- 'This is a United States of America consumer society notion of what matters most in life, and a wholly U.S. of A. type of infantile narcissism. '
Have you looked out of the spaceship's porthole at the global Facebook me me me phenomena and thought to yourself about the hegemony of identity fetish and also the global war scenarios happening in every nation state and wondered why that is?

I have tried lately to think of the world as a greater part of life, where anarchism is not a political philosophy but a mode of existing, which might entail explicitly political behavior. Perhaps Western thought gave anarchism the illusion of being a "vehicle" from the outset. That is, anarchism became a sort technology rather than an organism, a libertarian creed rather than a spiritual experience of revolt.
The anarchist is as much a construct as the capitalist behavior which we oppose. And this construct infects anyone who considers themselves an anarchist, but it is probably more prevalent in our social rather than personal experiences, because culture is the space which is the most susceptible to becoming static.
I am pretty optimistic so I don't want to let my pessimistic feelings get the better of me and I think that though anarchism is reduced to a subculture there are latent forces of anarchy embedded throughout the processes of the world. I don't think we, or whoever is concerned about the current decay, should focus on salvaging anarchism or sustaining ourselves as anti-capitalists. In the sense of adapting to the hegemonic culture without compromising our inner selves.

by the way I don't think that resistance and subversion should be given up, but this activity shouldn't be considered valuable in themselves. we obviously need to oppose the further encroachments of capitalism and make an offensive against it where we can. but overemphasis on fighting can lead easily to destruction when there's no popular ground to work on.

Where does this "popular ground" is built upon?

On fighting.

The more there's people around that show recognizable forms of resistance to a given order, the more there is ground for any person to get to it on his-her own. That's one of the reasons why counterinfo on anarchist actions is important to be spread.

A principle that a certain crowd here and elsewhere (including the Brilliant sausages) doesn't appear to understand.

i mean of course the fighting has to tune into and be tuned into by a broader culture, and of course its doing that in some ways. it helps if anarchist identity is put into the background since as long as anarchism remains anarchism then it's only a counterculture.

You shouldn't get involved in credible, ongoing, real world, bare-knuckle anti-capitalist action because it will solve your personal problems -- bring you friends, get you laid or whatever -- but if you are energetically involved in something that is bigger and better than yourself, good things may just happen to flow your way...

The United States is clearly on the verge of big changes -- yeah, i know, this part is U-S-centric, so sorry -- and anyone who has got a fully functioning backbone and a brain and a capacity to burn some calories needs to find a way to get involved.

In today's social context, pissing away time whining that Society-with-a-Capital-S is bad because it isn't being sufficiently indulgent with you on an atomized personal basis is pretty disgusting.

Moar self-sacrifice

what is the difference between "credible, ongoing, real world, bare-knuckle anti-capitalist action " and personal problems like finding friends and getting laid??? aren't those the exact same thing?? what am i missing here?

Now we're talking! You're totally correct, and avoid feminists at all costs!

I had a nice sexy time with a few feminists ladies by not being a douchebag. But obviously that wasn't your experience of them, given your misogynistic crybabying about them.

"In today's social context, pissing away time whining that Society-with-a-Capital-S is bad because it isn't being sufficiently indulgent with you on an atomized personal basis is pretty disgusting."
That's the whole point expressed well, but I would use Western-centric rather than US-centric, there is a commonality in prole values which is global in context, as far as I'm concerned every living entity is a unique evolutionary expression of defiance against gravity, hunger and oppression. I don't draw nations or borders into my geo-political map, which actually is blank just to let you know.

Well, thanks so much for letting me know.

"if you are energetically involved in something that is bigger and better than yourself"

wow. and you see that as an anarchist perspective... how, exactly? what exactly is something "bigger and better than yourself," if not an authority?

the self is a spook of small mind, not to be fully trusted.
one is much more, out-of-body,
submitting to the one big mind which bonds all matter together.
mind and matter are one.

hey why did the latest ITS communique get deleted from here and why hasn't the FAI-IRF communique for the attempted bombing of the gendarmerie center in Chile been posted?

please go to http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/tor-and-news
for meta points about anews.

I'm not joining your dinky little forum just to tell you this: ITS communiques while not specifically anarchist are still of interest to anarchists particularly those of us with anti-civ / anti-tech perspectives. I'd rather see the latest ITS communique that absurd articles taken from mainstream news websites. Also, how come the FAI-IRF communique from Chile I contributed here wasn't posted?

*than absurd articles taken from mainstream news wesbsites.

Because they're explicit not anarchists, have also arrogantly distanced themselves from any prisoner solidarity and that anarchist sites publishing their shit communiques was potentially detrimental to any anarchist struggle whatsoever?

I stand with Thecollective on that. These spooks no longer need any lip service from any of us. They should rather go beg some Mexican drug cartel for recognition.

"explicitLY"

(that was a response to 07:57)

All lives are influenced by context, and no two humans have identical contexts. Therefore there can't be a single 'real anarchist life'. However a person could attempt to apply anarchist ideas to their life. This can be harder in some contexts. Some of us are deep in enemy territory, surrounded by enemies and without the means to find or create allies. When social anxiety and increasing societal alienation mix, there ain't a lot of revolutionary potential, especially in the bland heart of suburban america.

Maybe it's your need to define everyone into categories is the problem.

How so? I view categories as a useful mental tool that can nevertheless be problematic in certain situations, but if you can explain why the use of categories is harmful or otherwise contrary to the goal of liberation in this case, I would be happy to reconsider it. It may be useful to more accurately describe what I meant in my previous post: by enemies I mean people who either overtly support the prevailing systems of capitalism and statism, or who are apathetic; in short, people who aren't 'on my side' in the struggle for human liberation. By allies I mean people who either are or would be willing to take cooperative action against capitalism, the state, etc. These are fairly vague categories but they seem useful to me in making decisions about possible actions I could take. I realize that any person in either category could be changed to the other, or could not fit in either, or could be both (all things being, in some sense, true, false, and/or meaningless), but for practical purposes it seems to work. I could perhaps convince people to take actions against the state & capitalism, but I tend to have minor panic attacks when talking to new people. Charisma isn't my strongest quality. As far as other actions, I lack experience or means to acquire it without a relatively severe risk of failure and consequences I consider negative. Maybe I'm just a paranoid coward, but if so I don't know how to not be that. TL,DR: I lack any support networks, trustable accomplices, equipment, skills, or the means to acquire such that would be useful to taking actions against capitalism or the state, as far as I am aware.

categories are a means of creating 'being' where it does not exist. this concept synthetically converts verbs (relational activities) into [notional] local sources of causal agency. the concept of category shifts the focus on balancing and harmonizing relations to programs of purification based on nurturing [subjectively-]preferred categories and starving out [subjectively-]dispreferred categories.

a category is created by circular logic. a category is first assumed to exist and the common properties of assumed members are measured, after which the category is defined by the common properties of its members and it is distinguished from other categories by the differences in common properties; e.g. 'male' and 'female'. in a worldview such as in modern physics wherein the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum, we distinguish forms 'relationally' so that their meaning comes by way of reciprocal complementarity [their meaning is mutually dependent]. by objectifying aspects of their form and taking inventory of their 'common properties', we find that 'females' [here we are PRE-supposing the existence of the category 'female'] have a vagina and uterus etc. and that 'males' [here we are PRE-supposing the existence of the category 'male'] have a penis and testicles etc.

in Heraclitean [relational] terms, 'male and female' are a 'unity-in-opposition' rather than two polar opposites, and they are relational features in the flow [panta rhei].

Western society uses categories as the basis for the semantic/operative reality that orchestrates and shapes individual and collective behaviour as in racism, feminism, classism etc.

you speak of the categories of friends [people like ourselves]-and-enemies [people unlike ourselves]

"Some of us are deep in enemy territory, surrounded by enemies and without the means to find or create allies. "

in the relational view of indigenous anarchists, the solution is not to gather together more people like ourselves as in politics, until we have the numbers to overwhelm the others who are not like us, ... but to restore relational balance and harmony in the presence of diversity. the 'anarchy' of the indigenous anarchists accepts and celebrates 'diversity'. 'anarchists' of this type cannot be defined on the basis of their 'common properties' as in the defining of membership in a 'category'. in order to understand this type of anarchist, one must look first to the relational situations he finds himself included in, to see whether he puts situation into precedence over intention or intention into precedence over situation. Western society breeds those who put intention over situation; i.e. they are self-identifying with some set of attributes or other which they believe distinguishes them from categories with other sets of attributes; i.e. as in racism, feminism, nationalism and other self-proclaimed unique and special categories wherein people detach and celebrate 'their own specialness' ['not being like the rest'] as if it was without relational dependency [social darwinism].

your advocacy of categories appears to be reinventing the politics of division, depicting anarchists as a superior category that deserves to dominate, rather than as a balance-and-harmony cultivating way of relating with one another and the world.

egad, i wish emile could make some effort to write in a manner that is not so completely annoying and repetitive.

how many times has emile written: "relational", "indigenous anarchists", "noun-verb", blah fucking blah.

release yourself from the chains of academia and ideology, oh sovereign one.

Usually comes with people trying to express a new idea(Stirner). To a certain degree it can't be helped. However, given how the Western radical mind is the textbook definition of insanity as defined by Einstein, I tend to give emile a break. Plus his ideas are so hermetically tight and good even though he has little to no prose.

my comment on sir einzige's comment [which was removed] along with my comment on my comment's removal have been removed from this discussion by thecollective and can be found ... here...

I actually agree, at least i think so, I just honestly don't know how to communicate practically in those terms, or perhaps how to think with them, and more importantly how to apply them to my situation.

one can apply relational theory to your/any situation by deconstructing all subject-verb-predicate statements [these falsely imply 'being']. 'relations are all there is' in the relational interpretation of modern physics [and indigenous aboriginal languages].

that is, one can deconstruct all statements of the form 'the child-soldier killed the concert goers', ... 'the white cop killed the black kid, ... the Russians invaded Afghanistan, ... the U.S. invaded Iraq, ... all of which have many influences leading into them and many influences leading out from them, as in a wave dynamic [conjugate relation of; ... reception/convergence... and... transmission/divergence].

the ISIS child soldier was conceived and conditioned by his mother so he could be a warrior-martyr because she was conditioned by the troubled colonizer-colonized relations. from the global community comes a convergence of conditioning influence and at the same time there is a divergence of conditioning influence back into the global community. the child-soldier's assassination event sits in the middle. As McLuhan would say, the child-soldier as a factory that produces dead bodies matters little, what matters is how our relations with one another and our common living space are transformed [the transforming relational medium is the message]. but Western thinking accepts 'semantic reality' as the 'primary reality'.

anyone's situation can be understood in either 'wave' [relational] or 'material' [being] terms. in relational mode one accepts continual re-incubation in the nexus of unfolding relational situation and actualizing intention. this is where one dissolves the 'I' so that your path is never laid out before you but your stepping forward creates it on the fly'. the 'material being mode', on the other hand, is where you put together a great anarchy plan so that you can be intention-driven and accomplish some 'really meaningful' goals and objectives. its the old nietzschean dionysian -appollonian dichotomy;

"The Dionysian is based on chaos [anarchy] and appeals to the emotions and instincts. By contrast, the Apollonian is based on reason and logical thinking. The content of all great tragedy is based on the tension created by the interplay between these two." -- Wikipedia

Nietzsche [in The Birth of Tragedy] recommends the Dionysian 'high' road while Euro-American society has entrenched [imprisoned?] itself in the Apollonian.

first: "All lives are influenced by context, and no two humans have identical contexts. Therefore there can't be a single 'real anarchist life'."

then: "people who aren't 'on my side' in the struggle for human liberation"

... so ... there can't be a single 'real anarchist life', but there IS a single 'human liberation'? i smell contradiction. can you clear the air?

All Lives Matter! Islamophobia and transphobia do not exist! The state is nothing but a spook! Make podcasts! Attend bookfairs! Negate the left, actualize anarchy! Destroy strugglismo!

Sounds good;)

I simply meant that there are people who i subjectively consider to be acting contrary to my wishes. I didn't intend to claim that this subjective opinion of mine was a universal standard. And i also intended 'human liberation' to be a rather broad category

Any earlier discussion of the need for actions relevant to the real world has predictably now spun off into aluminum foil helmet-wearer-land.

Because people are engaging each other for clarification?

What do you mean? Everything in the world is already action, in action.

I thought this was a particularly good topic of the week, but that the responses have generally been weak. As for me, I'm an emotional wreck who doesn't have the energy to write up the sort of answer I'd like to.

People who live and act as they choose both creating their lives on their own terms as much as often as firmly as possible and who also fight vehemently against that and those who get in the way of doing so seem far more "anarchs" than many who claim the word as an an identity. Given the authoritarian, moralistic, and ideological under/over/through tones especially of US y@ckerheads, I often wonder if I need to find a better shortcut word.

as you note, the popular way of searching for 'who/what is an anarchist' is to examine the actions/deeds of the individual and on that basis to 'identify' or 'endow with identity', the thing called 'anarchist'.

the individual and his actions are incidental to what we are really looking for, which is a 'way of life'.

our 'way of life' does not derive from 'the actions/deeds of individuals' (that is anthropocentric delusion).

we are not 'independent beings with free will with mastery over our acts' as religion and its secular counterpart 'science' teaches. we are vents for influences which are greater than us.

we are agents of transformation who are influenced by the situation we are born into and who influence the situation that our children are born into. women who support ISIS are bearing children specifically to become ISIS fighters in the long fight against the Kafir/infidel controlled world. These child-soldiers are the measure of the individual [the mother] more than her actions/deeds. parents have a secret weapon that can transform the unfolding present [aka 'future'] and it is called 'love'. 'love' softens up the child so that he can be infused with the teachings of his parents. why else would our authoritarian culture persist as it does?

“The function of education has never been to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them…acquiescence, not originality. …Schools are the central conserving force of the culture. … In order not to fail, most people are willing to believe anything and to care not whether what they are told is true or false. Only by remaining absurd can one feel free from fear of failure.” – Jules Henry, cultural anthropologist, in ‘Culture Against Man’

"It is Henry’s contention that in practice education has never been an instrument to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them. … Children do not give up their innate imagination, curiousity, dreaminess easily. You have to love them to get them to do that. Love is the path through permissiveness to discipline; and through discipline, only too often, to betrayal of self.” – R. D. Laing

of course our justice system, backed by science, claims that people are 'independent reason-driven beings [thinking machines] with free will and mastery over their actions. according to this line of thinking, isis child-soldiers, acting out of their own free will, chose to be isis fighters.

meanwhile, women in our western authoritarian society seek 'equality with males' in terms of acquiring more power in the realm of their own actions/deeds, and put their children in child-care to be shaped by who knows what.

indigenous anarchists, on the other hand, encourage their children to take instruction from nature.

"Listening to nature and not to me, it is wise to agree that all things are one" -- Heraclitus

Heraclitus advice was eclipsed in the Western world by the view that we should love culture aka 'civilization' more that we should love nature.

authoritarians are culture-first-nature-last visionaries who are identified not by their actions/deeds in their lifetime, but by how they transform the ongoing living space [i.e. how they influence their children]; as trump supporters understand

emile: "we are not 'independent beings with free will with mastery over our acts' as religion and its secular counterpart 'science' teaches. we are vents for influences which are greater than us."

ok, ziggy (and the other emile apologists), i want to see you defend that "hermetically tight" statement. you seem to have a clearly stirnerite perspective - how would you reconcile that with emile's words quoted above?

or this: "the individual and his actions are incidental to what we are really looking for, which is a 'way of life'."

with free will and mastery over are thoughts. The e is right and can be backed up by various things we know epistemically and scientifically.

Stirner himself says that the individual is a social creation somewhere in Der Einzige. What he is advocating is more of a post facto expression of being and uniqueness. He's not making any epistemic claims of mastery. Influences greater then us need not mean that they are more significant nor that they override our unique preferences for relating and expression. There are also no overriding rules or meaning that come from these greater influences to spook yourselves over.

The Daoist/Yangist would also make a similar point about going with the flow but in YOUR own interests.

"Influences greater then us need not mean that they are more significant nor that they override our unique preferences for relating and expression. "

then please do explain what "greater than us" means?

our desires are subject to almighty burritos
when infiniti equals zero,
who will evaluate the great?
we are nothing but to participate

Greater can simply mean orders of magnitude and operations relative to individuals. It does not mean being more significant or more important.

" orders of magnitude and operations relative to individuals"

what the fuck does that even mean? orders of magnitude i understand, but orders of magnitude... of what? operations relative to individuals? what operations? are you being purposefully obtuse?

please try to respond with words that actually make sense to someone outside of your head. unless, of course, you have no desire to be understood.

i thought individuals do not exist? or is that one area where you disagree with your professor emile?

I am therefore I think to reverse Descartes. There is individuation of thought form within hominid terrestrial bodies. There's no need to thingify it into individuals.

pathetic, zig, just fucking pathetic

If by chance you are the same poster who posted his idea of do nothing paralysis then you're not one to talk.

Actually, I think that was me? So no, this here is another different person who also finds you pathetic. Shall we start forming a line?

individuals exist only as part of their greater whole which can't be positively identified

indeed, the individual is basically rooted toward an abstract holism,
otherwise, by a wilfull ignorance, it becomes compromised and turns cynical

Nietzsche pointed out the grammar-based circular reasoning in Descarte's cogito; i.e. to say; 'i think, therefore i exist', presupposes "the existence of things" and that "thinking is an activity authored by things", both of which are 'items of faith' which are not substantiated by our relational experience. in other words, the proposition cogito ergo sum is 'theory-laden'.

"Cogito is certainly only one word: but it means something multiple: it is something multiple and, in good faith, we have a loose and rough grasp of it [greifen derb darauf los] being unified. Inserted within that famous cogito is 1) it is thinking 2) and I believe that I am it, which is here thinking 3) but it is also supposed that these two points remain up in the air as matters of faith, and so that first ‘it is thinking’ would also include yet another matter of faith: namely, that ‘thinking’ is an activity, and to that a subject, at least an ‘it’, would have to be thought — and the ergo sum means nothing more! But this is the faith in grammar, which here already assumed ‘things’ and their ‘activity’, and we are far from unmediated certainty [here, Nietzsche is referring to Descartes' moral prejudice in favour of certainty over appearance and uncertainty]. Let us therefore also let this problematic ‘it’ go and leave the cogitatur as the facts without mixing in articles of faith [...]." -- Nietzsche, Kritische Gesamtausgabe 11:639-640)

Descartes also uses the forms; ego cogito, ergo sum and ego sum, ego existo to emphasis that 'I' is the subject/author/doer of the thinking. as Nietzsche stresses, it is an 'error of grammar' to start with an activity and use grammar to impute 'being' to give it a doer-deed structure as in starting from the activity 'flashing' and saying 'lightning flashed'.

there is an implicit reversal of order here, as in sir einzige's reversal; i.e. the deed is the author of the doer, rather than vice versa [e.g. in flow-based languages, relational activity such as 'the slumping of the terrain' does not reduce to doer-deed grammar structures such as; 'erosional process' are 'wearing down the mountains' and 'depositional processes' are 'filling in the valleys'].

what's 'pathetic' in so many exchanges is the popularity of obfuscation and ad hominem in place of actually engaging with 'non-orthodox' views.

Agency comes from transformation as I and you see it. For me the individual is the creative nothing related to everything not a notional discrete creative something that is separate from something else.

And don't mind the annoying peasant intellects who don't get you. Emergent good ideas have never been treated nicely.

then why separate agency from transformation?

like emile I use the term agent(s) of transformation. The crude Western conception is to create a separate operating agent(God) who transforms things first. Transformation comes from void as I see it and from this indescribable mysterious void can come apertures of awareness which can eventually take on thoughtform and identity.

So no separating on my part. Just putting things in proper order.

is there such a power?

the omnipotent, one-god doesn't deign to separate it's components,
it has no favor, it is only good.
it transforms things primarily, in the beginning, not as a linear progressive project but,
eternal, for the coming of god's creature is ever-new.
hovering over the void;
the first will be last, and the last first -

You put things in their proper order, like Moses did.

we, people crave for to harmonize with our creative potential, endlessly seeking contact with source to develop a sound awareness of purpose. separated by inauthentic agency, pitted to compete, we are driven by the very voice of reason, against nature. confined in square prison-grids and pyramid structures, categorically identified, people become desperate, indeed.
thus detached from creator-mind, malnourished, diseased, the body disintegrates. the compromised body is now vulnerable to hijacking by the delinquent agency of egoic desire.

what does social-insurrection look like? how can the hordes of current people on earth most effectively converge upon a common sense of stewardship? what points of reference are already established as working grounds from which to evolve?
what is this conversation really about, anyways?

*playing-grounds

just to, i believe, 'clarify', ... it is not that people who summarily reject 'relational views' such as nietzsche's, are deficient in intellect, but rather that rejection tends to come from those who favour their intellect more than their intuition [Descartes' "moral prejudice" as Nietzsche called it], so the reference to Descartes was very appropriate since he, opted for 'truths' which were 'certain', which takes one's understanding 'out of the real world' of appearances and uncertainty.

there is nothing that is certain in the 'physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience'; i.e. 'life is what happens to us while we're busy making other plans' [john lennon].

so, it is the 'realists' who put intellect/logic before intuition, who believe that certainty is 'real' that reject the relational/nietzschean/stirnerian/machean worldview out-of-hand because it just doesn't work for realists. realists are like forensic scientists who work like hell to prove, with absolute certainty, that the child-soldier caused the death of innocent civilians. and if someone comes along and says that the physical reality is ambiguous since it is tensions in the relational social matrix we all help to influence that sources the child-soldiers' killer behaviours thus blurring the authorship, the forensic scientist who has just developed a brilliant and absolutely certain case, is going to puke. imagine if a new supreme court judge would acknowledge the relational reality, the other judges would puke, the bulk of the public would puke, the world would puke because Euro-American justice is based on 'certainty' and certainty comes from moral prejudice and the 'being' that is fabricated in grammar to fabricate 'certainty of authorship'.

intuitively, everybody knows that terrorism is 'payback' from earlier abusive treatment via a century and more of Euro-American colonialism. but, as r.d. laing says;

"“They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.” – R.D. Laing

the game is a language game that puts logical propositions [certainty] into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of appearances and uncertainty, as in the indefinite deferral of authorial sourcing of eruptions of violence which vent through people, but are sourced from relational social tensions that build and release in a process known as 'self-organized criticality'.

so, it is not 'peasant intellects' that 'don't get it' and 'don't want to', it is those [often hotshot intellectuals] with the moral prejudice that favours the belief in 'being' and grammar-based certainty over the physical reality of appearances and uncertainty. the former puts logic in precedence over intuition and the latter puts intuition in precedence over logic [using logic in a supporting role].

as nietzsche says;

"Your true self is immeasurably high above you or at least above that which you understand as your 'I'." -- Nietzsche

one finds the same in the relational view in modern physics wherein we are relational forms in a transforming relational continuum [the One]. as Schroedinger says, the observer and the observed, the seer and the spectacle, 'subject and object are One'.

there is thus a tension between reunification and individuation that is at the heart of Nietzschean philosophy and also modern physics. the storm-cell forms in response to a need in 'the One' in which it is included. in humans this influence is the 'creativity' or self-overcoming of the 'uebermensch' where we give ourselves up, Dionysus style, to the opening of situational possibility that inductively orchestrates and shapes the actualizing of our creative potentials.

only the herd mentality-trap has us hunker down, our apollonian ego satifisfied with its briefly acquired knowledge, so that it wants to turn its back on the beckoning cosmos which is inviting it to evolve, and instead drive itself out of its own internal knowledge and purpose to achieve some humanist [in the smallest sense of 'human'] doer-deed goals and objectives, as if it were a powerboater motoring around in a malleable space that is independent of it, pushing its way through stuff that it deems worthless and bothersome obstacle to its own rise to power over the 'otherness' that it sees nature as, ... and in the process failing to acknowledge that the world we are in is filling our sails and is giving us the power and steerage to discover and assimilate what we didn't know we didn't know, enabling us to transform who we are by the only real physical measure, our relations with the world [the transforming relational continuum] in which we are included relational features [relational forms {agents of transformation) in a transforming relational continuum].

of course, Western society has embraced simple Newtonian mechanics, already built into the subject-verb-predicate structures of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar which superimpose relational forms such as man against a notional absolute space and absolute time reference/measurement frame, synthetic independence-giving metaphysical trickery that simplifies and gives economy-of-thought to relational complexity that is mathematically intractable but nevertheless the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience. this newtonian herd-mentality man has a big ego and sees himself as a God with his own internal creative powers as Christianity teaches;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts." -- Vatican Archives

in the relational interpretation of modern physics, the world is given only once [there is no supra-natural afterworld] and creative power is immanent within this transforming relational continuum. the creative power does not derive from 'supra-natural' otherworld divine implants. therefore, to speak of "influences greater than us", in a nietzschean context, refers to the creative influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum, the source of our [uebermensch] will to become more than we are.

I just remembered this story. One day I was tripping face with a friend when my other friend texted me and asked if I wanted Chipotle. So I told my friend id be back in a couple hours. So we get to chipotle, and im tripping so hard I just give my friend a 20 and tell him to order for me. I get my food and drink and sit down with m friends and I go back to take a bote of the food and I just melted into the burrito. It felt like I was in a chipotle swimming pool, It was narly.

That's bizarre … I can see where that douche ziggy responded to something I remember posting about the importance of praxis. As usual, he misdirects in to a pointless, hairsplitting semantics thing but my post is gone. Whatever.

Anyway, I certainly don't feel powerless and isolated by social media. Lately, I've been working a shitty job that wasn't half as bad as my last 5 shitty jobs although of course it stole most of my spare energy. Now I've saved a bit of cash because my expenses are very low and I'm looking forward to spending a few months developing my anarchist projects in the real world. Spoiler alert: they're not media projects, I've never even had a social media account and no, I'm not just going to grow some vegetables and call that anarchism either.

That's the best part about Kevin Tucker's recent interview, he's trying to pin down why the 90s felt so different and makes a couple of loose connections to the online culture that's formed since then but it's really so very simple. Go outside, talk to people, build networks of affinity and DO things that impact the physical world and alter the landscape in lasting ways. That's what your enemies are doing, trust me.

- and as always, if you think that sitting around and having some cute little opinions and pet theories IS a praxis, have fun with that.

do you really imagine there are people who think that sitting around and having some cute little opinions and pet theories IS a praxis . what gives you that impression? should we be doing more report-backs on our daily affairs to keep you engaged or convinced?

Are you kidding? Not only is this website populated with posters who readily argue that position (although not in those terms) but like I said, Kevin Tucker goes off about it in that interview and it's the subtext of so many other posts and articles that allude to the feelings of paralysis that come from overdosing on social media … how can you possibly deny the existence of the tendency?

What gives me that impression? The vast majority of navel-gazing, remorseful, anti-tec discourse that exists today. If you want examples, start with the Kevin Tucker interview but again, I'm shocked that you require evidence on this one.

Did you feel that I'm somehow attacking people who are doing things by criticizing people who aren't doing things? If you and yours are keeping busy then why the fuck would anything I said have offended?

You comment very regularly, with consistent themes, consistent writing style, and consistent outrage - since you frequent the comments, why not give yourself an alias so that you can be part of something slightly closer to an actual dialogue instead of taking anonymous potshots at things you do not like?

I wouldn't call it outrage, it's just internet comments. I come here often enough to see certain narratives taking up a lot of space and I try to counter them. Why do I need an identity to do that? Anyway, I'm directly addressing the topic too.

«navel-gazing, remorseful, anti-tec discourse that exists today.»

Wow.... As if this is the predominant status quo in this society? Srsly how many anti-tech people can you count in your neighborhood? Or on Reddit and other corporate social media, or through the open source community? You’re actually being here the phallanx of a dominant status quo that is crazy about technological enslavement and progress at all costs (especially for profits), going after a rather thin minority of «fringe» dissenters.

Sure, yeah, there’s no denying this discourse exists today and is taking some «space» on this site (actually less in a month than Emile did in a single day, by word count). But you simply can’t avoid it, nah? Just as you probably can’t avoid having your eyes plugged to a telescreen, with their noxious blue light and EM emissions slowly and painfully killing your neural receptors and also apparently turning you into a zombie, day after day. Your answer to the
question about anarchist living, I guess...

So good to see that in every ramification of the online anarchist agora there’s fierce, relentless keyboard warriors working nonstop to fight it... for the Machine. Putting their lives on the line -literally- for this struggle. Waiting for chivaleresque heroic Medieval songs about it...

In a way you’re being the voice of your computer/handheld device.

But where is your voice, this lost among the hundreds of millions of voices on social media, and how does Waldo make any difference?

That was pretty elaborate Alfred … somebody asked me why I felt like the online-egoist-nihilist tendency needs to be countered. I answered the question, I didn't suggest like it was the central issue of our times. My whole point was to do something meaningful instead of pounding away at the keyboard.

It's not just this website either: where I live, there's a lot of related frustration from the anarchists I know and I'm not suggesting it's because of technology. It's merely because of some bad habits we've developed because of technology, of the social-media-as-praxis type.

Incidentally, if emile is a real person, they're absolutely the tendency I'm talking about. Not the self-critical type mind you, that's where the remorse comes in but rather the type who drank the koolaid and didn't even notice. Doesn't even think it's odd how much time they spend in front of the screen ...

The only form of life I've witness and relatively experienced that beyond any doubt deserved to be called "anarchist living" was the way I've seen through some Euro anarchists. This is the old and undying way of PIRACY. Hacking through society.

Insuring your material conditions through bartering/negotiating/stealing/looting/taking hostages/conspiring/occupying/squatting/fucking things up and living together without the need for money (inherently the most authoritarian tool for the domination of finance in this society) nor hindered in your choices by any outside regulations.

Piracy is the best, concrete way to live free in the here and now. Society and its relationships does not negotiate, therefore negotiation must be enforced in order to create liberty for yourself and your accomplices.

All the rest is just delusional fantasy.

A bit strict in terms of criteria but I like it! Of course, the state has been historically pretty aggressive when it comes to piracy. It tends to exist in places where the centre of law-and-order (read: armed apparatus of the corporate power structure) is weak or the projections of it's power are limited by logistics or something. Back in the day, it was in the cracks between the colonial empires and now it's usually where the power structure has abandoned places it considers worthless.

These days, successful piracy is a lot more clandestine.

i dont want to be a pirate. i want to be a clown!

You be whatever you want to be tiger!

somebody of a mind that frequents into outer-space, and vice-versa.

You can't seriously be wanting to be a clown. Zing!

Maybe ask this after the electon, as it's all anarchists I know are talking about.

It's hard to trust those that are so ready to turn around and endorse the system, and will call you childish for not agreeing to do so your self.

What can be considered real in our lives?

The things right in front of you are real. Right?
I know I'm too simplistic for all you theory heads, but if the situation just outside my front door is not real I'm flummoxed as to what else might be real in its stead.

We will never get to where we want to be until we see where we are.

Where we are, right this moment, it is real. How one moves from here to anarchy that is the practice.

aint nothing too simplistic for this theory-head…
the situation outside your front-door isn't as it appears through the threshold of individuated perception,
anarchy won't be approached by movement upon a linear plane -from here to there-,
the tricky practice is rather to become aware of the nameless void in between
which is neither here nor there

When an ordinary man attains knowledge, he is a sage; when a sage attains understanding, he is an ordinary man.

I appreciate your posts emile and I probably would agree with you except for not being able to finish one for getting bogged down in your actual meaning.

Having said that, your first two paragraphs here are important.

What do we mean by real?

For me, notice here I say "For me", and I'm just going to say it, I don't know. Are appearances real? Is the structure of subatomic particles real? Does reality only arise in relationship?

Who the fuck knows!

For me, again with the for me bit, it doesn't matter in this way: I don't deal on the subatomic level, so I don't usually bother with that. Appearances and Relationship are the levels I seem to operate on.
So, in order to function in the world, I make assumptions about the world. If my assumptions are correct, I don't really notice. If they are incorrect then I notice.

The real part comes now.

I take the appearance of the world as real until my relationship with it falters. Then I troubleshoot where things went wonky, make adjustments and try again.

I accept my place as a limited, fallible being, accept that ultimate reality is beyond my ken and move the fuck on.

The misery outside my door is real and the anarchy I want is possible or else it is all out of my sphere.

Probably.

my reply to your comment on 'what is real' has been moved ... here ...

the crux of my reply is that in the authoritarian system we are in, the politicians 'play with' our various assumptions on 'what is real' and manipulate the vote on this basis, so we elect a leader and are spun some or other 'semantic reality' that is used to organize our social programs. in anarchism, our assumptions on reality are no longer manipulated by a central authority, but the different assumptions are still there, so if we want to self-organize, we are going to have to declare and deal with our different assumptions on 'what is real'.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
C
N
z
r
q
p
w
Enter the code without spaces.