Anews Podcast 101, 2.1.2018

  • Posted on: 3 February 2019
  • By: thecollective

From ANEWS Podcast

Welcome to the anews podcast. This is episode 101. This podcast covers anarchist activity, ideas, and conversations from the previous week on anarchistnews.org.

Editorial: on crowdfunding by Chisel
TOTW: Collaborating, with Aragorn! and Ariel
(no Redacted this week)

This podcast is the effort of many people. This episode was

  • sound edited by Dim
  • what’s new was written by Jackie and narrated by Chisel and Dim
  • Music! 1) The O’Jays – For the Love of Money
    2) The Count-Count’s Song Censored
    3) Voice of America – Hands Across America

Tags: 

Comments

A fine episode!

the library is the work of one person? wow. that's a ton of work for whoever it is...

- one sentence sum up of project, podcast vague booking.

As you say we live/exist in/under capitalist/plutocracy, and so crowdfunding is one way of obtaining the stuff one wants to read/watch/hear/listen to etc, right? We also live in representative democracy (allegedly), and so voting is one way of obtaining stuff one wants to alleviate one's plight, wrong? It would appear that it is acceptable for anarchists to indulge in alienating relationships via dollars etc but is unacceptable where voting is concerned: that voting is antithetical to being a proper anarchist? This is not aimed at you Chisel, it is a point I feel worth making, especially as this site is also for the anarcho-curious. I would argue voting is up to the individual and ought not to be so ideological. Finally, thanks to Aragorn! and Ariel for their ruminations on Little Black cart publishing. Would you be willing to expand on this and chat about the reading group, 'compound' ( Iv'e heard it called, is it the Long Hall/Lang Haul?). Is there some kind of anarchist/community centre where activities etc take place, as I would be interested in how you all collaborate in making it happen and continue operating. I am currently re-reading 'Demanding the Impossible' by Marshall. The word 'faith' is used quite a few times in the first section with regards to human capabilities/will to relate as anarchist. So, it could be argued that anarchy is based on faith, would that be a fair assessment? There is nothing scientific about it? Faith is a requirement of wanting to be an anarchist similarly as wanting to be a Christian etc? Likewise, it appears anarchists are awaiting collapse as are many Christians for their own faith, respectfully?

i will address some of these points, whether to me or not :)
a. i wouldn't say that this site is necessarily for the anarcho-curious, although of course you're welcome here. the anarcho-curious part is more for the podcast, although it probably does a bad job of that. moving on...
b. while we are forced to deal with money, and every anarchist will have their own line in the sand about what compromises they're willing to make to survive, that is not in any way analogous to voting.
c. christianity underlies u.s. culture (and culture in many other places too, fwtw), and so there are lots of tropes that are assumed by anarchists in the u.s. (and many other places too) that are not necessarily appropriate if one takes anarchist thinking more seriously. i would include among those martyrdom (not saying all martyrs are christians, obv, just that the logic follows here), valuing the spirit over the body (for that matter, "over" being a reflection of higher value... and "higher", jeez, it goes on and on). some anarchists are awaiting collapse, but many are not. that could be a function of armageddon thinking, or of an assessment of our capacity against the state, etc.
d. the long haul is an infoshop in berkeley. it is unrelated to LBC except that they're both in the same town. the long haul has been around for 30+ years or so, and isn't particularly anarchist, though very anarchist-friendly.

tl/dr: there's a lot going on. welcome to the chaos :)

"b. while we are forced to deal with money, and every anarchist will have their own line in the sand about what compromises they're willing to make to survive, that is not in any way analogous to voting." Daniel Suelo, Mark Boyle, Christopher Knight, Heidemarie Schwermer are just 4 people I have read about living without money: that dealing with money is, indeed, a choice; that 'we' are not forced? Maybe, it is the insidious surreptitiousness of convenience that compels you to believe you are forced to deal with money? Maybe, Chisel, you are not forced but that you choose? Maybe it is this 'choosing' that prevents you, me and many others from 'real friendships' as we prefer the convenience of having our relationships mediated through money? Charles Eisenstein has written some wonderfully crafted material on this, I think he wrote it in 'Sacred Economics'? Convenience is very powerful ideology: many of us fully allow it to lead our lives even though we pretend otherwise! Would you care to respond, Chisel?

7 Billion people on the planet and this foo names 4 who are "living without money".

science!

Push back hard on this fairy tale, as if capitalism doesn't involve any coercion. Only somebody who's lived a very sheltered life would try to argue that just because a few people managed to disconnect from the economy (more like minimize their contact), we're all choosing to use money.

capitalism is not just the options of individuals, it is also the structure that informs/forces those options.
i agree that convenience and assumptions are rife, and that it's possible for some people, perhaps many more people than realize, perhaps even me, to choose differently. and if all those people/us chose differently then things would be different. but i'm not sure the idea that "we could all just choose to be different" is really an argument, no?

but the confusion about/difference between individual choice and structural, systemic issues is a huge question. systems are not *just* a bunch of individuals together. they're something more/other. that doesn't mean that they don't change, can't be influenced, but i'm certainly not sure what would change them in ways we want. i have only seen things get worse, although that could just be me... :)

Ha! Definitely not just you

"while we are forced to deal with money." Are we though??? Eisenstein and how human connection (community) is degraded by the convenience of money and how we can reduce our dependence on money by relying (yes relying) on each other via mutual help: we will never have a community while we use money. Community is about being there for each other and not contracting out when we need help and/or because it is quicker/more convenient/less hassle. Childcare is a good example. People say they want community yet spend their time online and use money: community doesn't happen by itself: we have to make it happen, we have to want it. It appears to me that people claim they want it but how badly? Loneliness is rife and is the next commodification? How many people check in on their neigbour? We probably thought community was boring and technology was 'life in the fast lane' and hip..it appears we got it wrong! Community also takes time because it is built on trust. It is interesting that intentional communities don't stand the test of time: because people can dip in then dip out: this is because there is money and so people can conveniently leave! Imagine if you had to stay, had to make it work. So for me, their is some choice, as with voting: an anarchist can choose to vote and can choose to lessen their convenience of money and build community. I named four individuals, there will be many many more. The fact that there is pushback could be because Charles is correct. We allow our lives to be taken over: death by convenience? If Mark Boyle and others can do it, then so can many other people. Mark et al demonstrated it can be done. Yes, it is huge subject. Mark Boyle thought as you do: that we are forced to deal with money but he worked out a way to live without it and so can we; the more that do, the 'easier' is it will be: that we shift convenience in a different direction?

you're just repeating the idea that individuals can make different choices.
i agree with you. individuals can make different choices.

there's more going on than just individual choices, although individual choices are relevant to individuals, for sure.

Add new comment