Add new comment

It seems to me that anarchists like Kim Kelly, Ruth Kinna and William C. Anderson are speaking to the world they want to live in (at least at times in this interview) and that is why I don't agree with them. Because I have no idea what the shape of the world I want looks like, I just know that all parts of this extant world, all atoms of this society, none of it is worth saving. So, if I wanted to try to convince someone of my anarchy I would tell them why I want this world / society to burn, and the ashes to burn again. You know, I'm just not convinced the average NPR listener is up to the task, if you know what I mean.

Now, if I could imagine anarchy beyond the destruction of this world, if I were to try to describe how one might live in an anarchist society, it might sound like talk of mutual aid, and self-direction (though not self-government (sheesh)).

Which is to say also, any duty (IF there is duty) toward an anarchist world is going to be different from any anarchist duty (again if there is one) against this world. If you like -- the ethics one might have toward anarchy are ethics against this world, and that is hard to parse to non-anarchists, and even some anarchists, as we all know.

Something else about that NPR interview: the humanism. The mutual aid, the non-hierarchy, the no-power-over all that is understood to refer to humans only. So, in the question of duty, obligation or care taking, these look different if we assume only a human context, or if we assume a deeper, multi-species omni-species context.