Add new comment

My reactions are not accusations, but provocations, insults are a source of self-amusement in the comment section. Feels less insane than talking out loud to the screen, but not much different from that. You did call me out on my b.s., that's cool.

"Why talk about a "basic social unit"? First, because a participant in the workshop specifically asked me to."

Just tell those querying about units that you seek to live without measure. And tell em to never settle for basic. Maximalist instead of a minimal basic entente or synthesis.

"Second, because, as good as the "society!" jokes are, anarchism really does seem to need to come to some kind of terms with "the consequence of getting mixed up with other people." And we often do it pretty badly, leaving authoritarian, hierarchical, archic elements intact—the sort of thing you are presumably accusing me of."

Hmm, good things to think about. If I were in a prison, I'd want to escape, not reform it, destroying it would be great but not likely. I don't think that the "authoritarian, hierarchical, archic, elements" in society! can be reformed away, specially not by anarchists, and I would say anarchists would immediately benefit more from evasion, disruption, expropriation. Can they work less, obey less, do more of what they want, what can they get away with? Can mechanisms of surveillance and control be destroyed? I might be wrong. It feels flimsy to reply this. But I don't think conceiving of an ideal way of getting mixed up with other people really addresses the consequences of the current way of getting mixed up with people and the chain reactions of previous mix-ups. I don't think you can collectively unlearn the bad and do it right this time around, so to speak.

"Why not defer to parents who seem to think of their children as property or subordinates? For the same reason that it seems useful to root out the patriarchy in Proudhon's social science. For the same reason it seems useful not to just accept "direct" or "pure democracy" as compatible with anarchy."

I was making fun of the Bakunin quote to annoy you, sorry if it didn't make much sense. I do agree with the other two things you said, I think it's worth taking the time to explore that instead of breezing past by them with an odd mention of the Tucker quote of throwing kids in fire, reminds me of Kropotkin twirling a chair mention. You don't have to do it yourself, by why mention it if you don't want people to argue about it? Let's discuss the patriarchal and heteronormative aspects of his theory of the family, for example, or let's not bring it up at all. All these old-timey dudes have more to offer in terms of our disagreements with them than the few morsels we can take away. I think that's great part of the spirit of your writing.

"Why, on your side, talk about a "guarantist social contract," when the discussion was quite explicitly about the anarchic alternative to all pacts and contracts? Who the fuck knows? Catharsis, presumably—but catharsis for an encounter shaped by you into something much more unpleasant than it needed to be."

Isn't the anarchic alternative just doing what you want? Why do terms of relationships be decided in advance? I think it's just as valid for you to think the pursuit of alternative models is a good to follow, as it is for me to have my doubts about it. I don't think any of my comments are a "gotcha" or in any way shake up foundations of you're trying to set up, but they do point to a path that diverges from the current emphasis of this post, and perhaps that of your vision of resultant anarchy, not that this is new to you as you've seen similar arguments play out throughout anarchist history.