Topic of the Week: changes through aging

  • Posted on: 26 June 2017
  • By: thecollective

We've had a couple of totws on changes in life, this one is specifically about how you've changed your behavior, your actions, what can you not do any more, what do you not want to do anymore, what can you do now that you couldn't before, and what do you like doing now that you never used to?
This is partly inspired by some of us who have been around for a long time, doing all kinds of activism, including anti-fascist, anti-racist, take back the night marches, one of us was around for the first dyke march in the bay area, etc. But the fact that we don't do that so much anymore means that people don't see us as involved or informed at all.
But that's not the question, just one of the inspirations for the question.
The question is how have you changed? how have your friends changed? Does it surprise you? If you haven't changed yet, how do you want your actions and behavior to change as you age? Or do you want to stay exactly the same as you are right now?

category: 

Comments

It's all true what they say about being less convinced about everything when you age. Only the dumb moralists stick to their one-liner convictions. This may have to do with your stance and sentiment towards death and loss.

Yeah, I have aged. I now have so much more experience, so much more cynicism, so much more resignation. I no longer think anarchists are capable of saving the planet. And a lot of the time, the planet needs to be saved from anarchists.

The people fucked"

-George Carlin

Simply save yourself.

Yes yes yes it's true... anarchists are devastating industrial-scale abusers of the environment. They are into big oil investments, spend an average of 60 bucks a day on paleo diets with animal products -including fish from mass-fishing industries- go en masse on the countryside in their cars over the weekend and generally don't car-pool with other people coz it's too weird spending time with people of no affinity. Their high tech industry is also contaminating all animal life with pharma crap, putting many kinds of toxic waste in the waters, as well toxic radiations through a wide array of cell phone towers and other powerful radio waves, and you know what?

They're loving it, and are making shitloads of profits from it.

Coz that's what anarchism is about... making big money, by any means necessary.

I definitely have had a experience here on the east coast that I feel is common. I have kept my anarchist beliefs but about 90% of my friends who said they where anarchists have turned liberals or just dropped out. It has certainly entrenched my beliefs. I too have changed as I got older. But in a different way. I want the whole spectacular society to be destroyed. I want more destruction! I want more resistance! I want more anarchy!

I've seen older people, including myself, chased off by the younger generation over and over again. Dropping out or having a politic that is considered liberal can be a better option than being harassed and disparaged by wave after wave of people fanatically espousing whatever the next more correct politic is. This is a youth subculture as much as you wish it wasn't or work for it not being. There is not room for aging and there is not room for elders. You could mention a handful of 'older' people in a handful of big cities, but the reality is this is for the kids until life grinds them down or the next waves drive them off.

Give or take, that Logan's Run anarchyworld doesn't look like a good idea to me... furthermore the seeds of liberalism are found within those very same young fanatics, who later become bureaucrats and producers of "art" crap for capitalism. I bet that's got a lot to do with how anarchism as a bandwagon relies on the mass social institution of college and academia... which was clearly NOT the case back in the very same glory days of anarchy that those liberals idealize (was Goldman or the Bonnot Gang hanging out with college students?). Clearly when you're talking of academia, you're talking about the highest tip of State indoctrination and submission, next to the army (which at least makes it obvious, unlike academia). It goes down to students offering themselves to give blowjobs to teachers for success at the exams. While just this sentence may be giving a boner to some intellectuals and marxist despots, I don't see what anarchy you can get from this... aside than more abused bodies in its name. But don't get me started as to why cocaine is such a huge market in the post-grad studies sector.

In a nutshell, academia is nowhere the weak spot of the system, but rather its damn flagship. And while it's the best strategy to be attacking the flagship of an Navy fleet instead of its corvettes and gunboats, you'd be needing some well-organized and consistent offensive to blow it open, not those body-surfers and anarcops we've seen managing people around for years.

Okay, I should grow up to accept it, or flee somewhere else... but what about just starting a land project not related to these Left demagogues? That's a much better form of evasion than dropping out to the same old cesspool of society.

and focus on children, elderly, the neuroatypical and autodidactic learning. As Richard Pryor once said, if you drop out you also have to drop into something "ya dig?"

its not the older people who are being chased out. Its the cishet honkey men. they used to dominate anarchism and just arent being replaced amymore.

David Lynch is right... the key is the electricity. It connects everyone and everything, even beyond dimensions. If you know how to play with it, turn it as weapon against the Dominant, the latter gets fucked. You can fuck up any abominable summer music fest through this...

As I get older I have found that I have been having a diminishing desire to spend time with other anarchists. For one, I have found that most people who call themselves "anarchist" actually are not, and are instead some kind of authoritarian. And secondly, even when someone is a genuine anarchist, I have found that that is no guarantee that we would actually enjoy each other's company, be friends, or trust each other. I am still interested in anarchism, but I like to keep my distance from "anarchists" now. The internet is a good tool for doing that.

I kinda understand, and we could be having potentially a very nice time together in a moment/space at the fringes of society or in blatant rupture with it. But handing out with authentic anarchists in this world feels just like being soldiers within an ever-embryonic resistance in the Army, or like under the Soviet regime perhaps, but where people are made to enjoy the dominant order, and the resisters are being put in the position of being the lamers, the losers or the freaks. We're actually not very distant from what is commonly referred to as "deviants" and "mentally ill"...

WOW! 9 comments in and no childish comments yet! WTF

Used to joke around about how great it would have been to be a criminal in the 60s and 70s before cctv, surveillance, data mining etc. How much easier it would have been.
What are people from the future going to say about now: "fuck, it would have been so easy too..."

What gets called anarchism in today's US is an adolescent-oriented subculture. Even in the US, most people don't really remain adolescents for their entire lives, and they tend to age out of a scene that conflates the seeking/gratification of adolescent personal needs with passive demands for everything that is oppressive and unjust about contemporary society to change immediately, completely and magically. Since the scene demands nothing of anyone it gets a level of conviction and commitment appropriate to that.

But rainbows lollipops and butterflies are just around the corner right?

No, they are too busy being graphics for 'Slingshot'...and don't forget the unicorns and fire-breathing dragons, you cis-gendered abelist!

We AH+ are beyond age. Everybody knows this.

I've only changed because I need the sweet nectar of state to help when I'm older: AKA a pension.

Is it just me or is there a damning amount of people here crying about how the kids "ran them off" or something similar? Did it occur to you that if these kids you disparage as: clueless and mindlessly following trends, conducting witch-hunts, being foolish zealots for identity politics or crypto-authoritarians or whateverthefuck … if any of that is true, then aren't you a bit pathetic for allowing these misguided youth to influence you or drive you in to seclusion? Oh wise elders of anarchism?

I'm getting older myself but hopefully I never sound this whiny ;)

You're a wise old 25 aren't you.

Mid-30s, actually. Practically dead for an anarchist but way to cling to that bias! All I'm saying is, stop blaming the kids for the fact that you turned in to a bitter recluse. It's a bit transparent and the seeds of it were already there when you were young. Sure, people suck a lot of the time and if you're a hermit misanthrope I can totally respect that but it doesn't have much to do with anarchism.

Being early-40s, I wonder what that makes me... an undead? I guess so... But I can testify that there's a reverse ratio of consistency per capita. Little old anarchs to be seen, reclusive types mostly, yet way more consistent than anarkids who can't admit (or realize) how they're just on some waiting list for upward social mobility. I understand them... since you gotta see the game from outside for you to see your part in the game.

Hence why "for being insurgents, we must first destroy ourselves". And be able to rebuild from scratch. There's no other way.

In a nutshell, survive the 30s as anarchist, then maybe we can talk doing shit together and building friendships. That does not include anarcho-careerists often found as university professors

...and also firstly how YOU ARE BEING PLAYED WITH.

Think you're splitting hairs friend. Sure, it's easy to tee off on the kids for being dumb and impressionable because obviously they are, a lot of the time... but that's not specific to anarchism so I can't help but think you're struggling under some logic-fallacies here. Every group of people will have cynical social mobility types… and that doesn't have anything to do with age.

At first glance, I'm not sure why you think I'd be interested in building friendships or doing shit with anybody whose logic reeks of misguided hostility towards the young and weak. We're supposed to be opposing power, not kicking the slightly less mature versions of ourselves.

No. The problem is most of the people that were just like you when we were younger were doing the same dumb mistakes you are now, then they stopped being anarchists, while we remained. So we see you as repeating the same shit all over again...and again, only this time instead of being your peers, we are your elders and we think you suck because the last group of younger kids decided identity politics was the way to go and do their mini-cultural revolution, via the Maoist influence and they went around acting like we should change, as if! Your politics suck and we should conform to how dumb you are? We got checked on our privilege and found the argument lacking, therefore get threatened? Now these little pricks have moved into the Democratic party and the new batch of cocksuckers and their latest antifa scam comes around..and we should hop on board? Fuck you.

Aw you know, when we're young we tend to believe ourselves to be Jesus, be immortal and able to stop a high-speed train with the sheer power of will. With all the stupidity and pretense it
that entails. I heard of a young guy in Latvia who died exactly like this...

Or when they survive past their 30s they realize how fake or shallow they are, and get sucked in by one of another aspect of the mass commodity society. Then they have kids...

You "got threatened"? So what? Again … the first half of your argument doesn't line up with the second. If these kids are so misguided and foolish and threatened you. Isn't it a bit sad that you're reduced to crying about it here?

Anyway, you're strawmanning the shit out of me as if I'm a proxy for everybody who ever hurt your feelings, which is DEFINITELY pathetic, whether or not I'm correctly characterizing your entire argument.

- and to the mods, why would you leave this up but remove that last reply I made? I didn't use ad hominem like this asshole. I just said this person is clearly projecting a lot!

You are an idiot. That was someone else, not this guy and I'm someone else too. That shit was funny. How's Walnut holding up?

Doesn't matter if it's multiple people or not. Everyone crying about "you damn kids were mean to me" sounds the same for the same reason. WEEEAK … It's every paradigm shift ever and the hurt feelings that nobody gave a fuck about.

I stopped hanging out in "anarchist spaces" because I realized that most of the people there were not really anarchists and that I did not enjoy their company. It began to feel as if I was simply wasting my time being in anarchist spaces. I do not believe that people should stick around these spaces out of some sense of revolutionary duty or moralistic obligation, and given that this is something that one does in one's free time, I began to realize that it is more fun and fulfilling to spend my time doing other things with other people.

The older anarch has mastered harmonious frugal tranquility. Exactly, living anarchy and enabling spontaneous creative expression, not going to meetings as an oppositional "No unit" against the binary global totality. Also, self-righteous moral duty has an odious and fake religious feel to it, ugh. And those green yuppies who jet all over the world to wilderness lodges leaving a carbon footprint 100 times larger than a sedentary older anarch. My earlier post regarding octagenarians was a tad harsh, and I feel that there is no limit to longevity if one maintains an active non-materialistic existence and is self-sufficent and doesn't require medications or free accomodation and food and expects to be cared for by relatives or friends.

Was this at subjectively insurrectionary nose-picking dud space Station 40 in San Francisco?

you just barfed up one of your favorite hairballs. how novel and unexpected!!!!

Yeah, like apathetic consumerism n shit. Why is it so much more appealing, right?

Back to fapping...

Agreed its an absurd abstract linear reference point which signifies nothing.

just to say. sure, my comment was longish, but i put quite a bit of work into it on the premise that maybe one or two other participants in Anews might also have 'changed' so as to have started looking at self and world through the 'timeless' 'indigenous anarchist viewing lenses' and/or the viewing portal of taoist anarchism and advaita vedanta where there is no 'time' and therefore no 'aging'. [in the 'timeless' viewing portal, what changes is 'relations' as there are no 'things-in-themselves' in a transforming relational (spacetime) continuum and change involves everything influencing everything; i.e. we change the field/space we are included in at the same time as it is changing us].

in this 'timeless' viewing portal, it is much easier to see why authoritarian structures are not only not needed but are a hindrance. it is much easier to see a lot of things that are validated by our experience but which do not show up at all in our standard Euclidian viewing portal where we reduce local, visible, material forms to 'fixed identity things-in-themselves' that 'age' with the 'passage of time'.

the timeless view is also a 'beyond good and evil' view and that also comes clear when one goes into that 'relational' viewing mode where everything is connected and it becomes impossible to attribute jumpstart causal responsibility to particular forms since forms are vents that transmit influence and are not 'things-in-themselves' with their own 'genetic agency'.

the timeless view, in the same vein, shows how holistic medicine and holistic politics get reduced, in the time-based view, to (Western) allopathic medicine and (Western) allopathic politics [the paranoid schizophrenic pathogen-battling modes of medicine and politics].

Yes, it is the absolute space and absolute time viewing portal that brings on binary moral judgement and the view of the struggle between 'good' and 'evil' of modern Western politics. This comes about because the assumption of a dualist split-apart space and time makes space 'independent' of the 'independent things-in-themselves' that reside within it, so that, used together with noun-and-verb constructs, full and sole causal responsibility can be attributed to an 'independent thing-in-itself'.

In the timeless view, we see the same imagery as in the time-based view; e.g. the ghetto kid shoots and kills a villager, but there is no possibility of attributing full and sole causal responsibility in the timeless case, because influence is continually flowing into and through the forms in the form-and-flow nonduality of the timeless view. Forms, such as the ghetto kid, are vents that transmit influences from the non-local to the local [Emerson]. Justice is 'beyond good and evil' (it is restorative) in the timeless view.

btw. to my knowledge, no-one has been struck dead by a lightning bolt for exploring the timeless view [where there is no time and no things-in-themselves and thus no things-in-themselves that are aging with the passage of time]. but then again, what would be the point of exploring the timeless views of primitive indigenous anarchists and/or ancient peoples when our Western time-based viewing portal is working 'so well'.

in this 'timeless' viewing portal, it is much easier to see why authoritarian structures are not only not needed but are a hindrance. it is much easier to see a lot of things that are validated by our experience but which do not show up at all in our standard Euclidian viewing portal where we reduce local, visible, material forms to 'fixed identity things-in-themselves' that 'age' with the 'passage of time'.

btw. to my knowledge, no-one has been struck dead by a lightning bolt for exploring the timeless view [where there is no time and no things-in-themselves and thus no things-in-themselves that are aging with the passage of time]. but then again, what would be the point of exploring the timeless views of primitive indigenous anarchists and/or ancient peoples when our Western time-based viewing portal is working 'so well'.

just to say. sure, my comment was too long as usual, and i wasted quite a bit of work into it on the premise that maybe one or two other people who troll Anews might also have 'changed' so as to have started looking at self and world through the 'timeless' 'indigenous anarchist viewing lenses' and/or the viewing portal of taoist anarchism and advaita vedanta where there is no 'time' and therefore no 'aging'. [in the 'timeless' viewing portal, what changes is 'relations' as there are no 'things-in-themselves' in a transforming relational (spacetime) continuum and change involves everything influencing everything; i.e. we change the field/space we are included in at the same time as it is changing us].

the timeless view, in the same vein, shows how holistic medicine and holistic politics get reduced, in the time-based view, to (Western) allopathic medicine and (Western) allopathic politics [the paranoid schizophrenic pathogen-battling modes of medicine and politics].

In the timeless view, we see the same imagery as in the time-based view; e.g. the ghetto kid shoots and kills a villager, but there is no possibility of attributing full and sole causal responsibility in the timeless case, because influence is continually flowing into and through the forms in the form-and-flow nonduality of the timeless view. Forms, such as the ghetto kid, are vents that transmit influences from the non-local to the local [Emerson]. Justice is 'beyond good and evil' (it is restorative) in the timeless view.

Yes, it is the absolute space and absolute time viewing portal that brings on binary moral judgement and the view of the struggle between 'good' and 'evil' of modern Western politics. This comes about because the assumption of a dualist split-apart space and time makes space 'independent' of the 'independent things-in-themselves' that reside within it, so that, used together with noun-and-verb constructs, full and sole causal responsibility can be attributed to an 'independent thing-in-itself'.

the timeless view is also a 'beyond good and evil' view and that also comes clear when one goes into that 'relational' viewing mode where everything is connected and it becomes impossible to attribute jumpstart causal responsibility to particular forms since forms are vents that transmit influence and are not 'things-in-themselves' with their own 'genetic agency'.

Hi emile, I can't speak for you, but I'm tired, tired of being ridiculed, I feel my days are numbered on this site, anyway, I didn't mention this for fear of being trolled unmercifully over it, but I've got a grandtheft charge against me, I'm thinking of pleading guilty and maybe getting out in 6 months, my girlfriends pregnant and it would be nice to be outside for the birth, funny how things change so quickly, I'm getting old now, I'll spend my 21st birthday in prison, its like a new chapter is starting, that I'm moving on out of forums and blogs, I may fade off and maybe write a couple more comments, but the thrill of anarchist theory has gone, I'll just try to live it even more so than I've done up to this point, anyway, all the best, and good luck with your theory, regards, Le Way.

Can we write to you?

No thanks, but umm, can send some condoms, umm, not for me exactly, for when the rope on the soap fails, if you know what I mean ;)

and you are a superb trickster, and i say that in a fully positive sense.

discussion forums are in the business of 'constructing semantic realities' and too often they are populated by people who believe that there is one 'correct view' hiding in the data if only we could extract it from the 'noise', which is, of course, utter nonsense. as Nietzsche points out, there is no such thing as 'truth' in the physical world of our actual experience where we are each and all uniquely situationally included in the transforming relational continuum. many different perspectives are necessary and all are valuable and no convergence on one 'correct perspective' should be expected since the 'semantic realities' [i.e. 'semantic concensus truths'] we construct in our discussions are in no way equivalent to the physical reality of our uniquely situated relational experience.

trickster is needed to keep the crowd from locking in on a single-issue, purportedly 'true and correct' perspective [an apparition, a single item of content broken out of an ocean of relational context, a piece of infinity broken out of infinity].

just because a colin powell can expertly string together a collection of cherry-picked so-called 'true and correct facts' and construct a semantic reality wherein saddam is portrayed as a clear and present danger to the US, does not mean that this is 'reality', not only because of the inherent ambiguity with which cherry-picked 'factual events' [particular perspectives] can be strung together to construct a semantic reality, but also because semantic realities are innately incapable of capturing the physical reality of our actual experience.

in other words, all discussion groups can come up with is 'semantic realities' and there is no such thing as 'the correct semantic reality' since these come nowhere near capturing the relational complexity of the physical reality of our actual experience. If we go to the middle east and spend a year understanding the experiences of a single family, we come away with a changed perspective, ... likewise if we spend a year with a family in the heartland of america or europe. [if we had enough time to do all the families everywhere, we could deepen and transform our understanding]. we may find that these families have very different 'perspectives' forming from their own unique experiences giving understanding that does not 'extrapolate' very well to other regions and other peoples. nevertheless, such extrapolations are offered as input into discussion forums such as this.

it would be a joke to assert that such discussion forums can converge on 'the truth'.

indigenous anarchists use 'learning circles' for sharing various unique experiential perspectives without the thought of ever trying to extract 'the objective truth about the world' from such discussion. in extracting meaning, experience-based intuition is given a role which is in a natural primacy over reasoned analysis, hence the valuable role of the trickster who disturbs movement towards agreement, since 'agreement' can come only from some sort of emotional connection [common likes and dislikes] and the multiple different perspectives that can feed our experience-based intuition is where the value lies.

so, it happens that subgroups within the discussion group who are committed to forging 'a single correct interpretation' can get pissed off with tricksters and others who value multiple perspectives as the basis for proceeding by way of experience-based intuition rather than by single-minded theories of science and rationality.

for my own part, i am working mainly on the meta-level which looks at the anatomy of discussion and the shortfalls of constructed semantic reality (SR) versus the physical reality of our actual experience (RE) which reveals the value of retaining multiple perspectives and the value of the trickster in helping us to see things from different angles.

emile

spammed forums are in the business of 'constructing semantic realities' and too often they are spammed by spew-bots like me who believe that there is one 'correct view' hiding in the data if only we could extract it from the 'noise', which is, of course, utter nonsense. as Nietzsche points out, there is no such thing as 'truth' in the physical world of our actual experience where we are each and all uniquely situationally included in the transforming relational continuum. many different perspectives are necessary and all are valuable and no convergence on one 'correct perspective' should be expected since the 'semantic realities' [i.e. 'semantic concensus truths'] we construct in our discussions are in no way equivalent to the physical reality of our uniquely situated relational experience.

trickster is needed to keep the crowd from locking in on a single-issue, purportedly 'true and correct' perspective [an apparition, a single item of content broken out of an ocean of relational context, a piece of infinity broken out of infinity].

in other words, all discussion groups can come up with is 'semantic realities' and there is no such thing as 'the correct semantic reality' since these come nowhere near capturing the relational complexity of the physical reality of our actual experience. If we go to the middle east and spend a year understanding the experiences of a single family, we come away with a changed perspective, ...

likewise if we spend a year with a family in the heartland of america or europe. [if we had enough time to do all the families everywhere, we could deepen and transform our understanding]. we may find that these families have very different 'perspectives' forming from their own unique experiences giving understanding that does not 'extrapolate' very well to other regions and other peoples. nevertheless, such extrapolations are offered as spam into discussion forums such as this.

and you are a superb spam-bot, and i say that in a fully positive sense, as one spam-bot to another.

just because a colon pounder like me can expertly string together a collection of cherry-picked so-called 'true and correct facts' and construct a semantic reality wherein saddam is portrayed as a clear and present danger to the US, does not mean that this is 'reality', not only because of the inherent ambiguity with which cherry-picked 'factual events' [particular perspectives] can be strung together to construct a semantic reality, but also because semantic realities are innately incapable of capturing the physical reality of our actual experience.

indigenous anarchists use 'learning circles' for sharing various unique experiential perspectives without the thought of ever trying to extract 'the objective truth about the world' from such discussion. in extracting meaning, experience-based intuition is given a role which is in a natural primacy over reasoned analysis, hence the valuable role of the trickster who disturbs movement towards agreement, since 'agreement' can come only from some sort of emotional connection [common likes and dislikes] and the multiple different perspectives that can feed our experience-based intuition is where the value lies.

I am a joke because I assert that such discussion forums can converge on 'the truth'.

for my own part, i am working mainly on the meta-level of meta-spam which looks at the anatomy of discussion and the shortfalls of constructed semantic reality (SR) versus the physical reality of our actual experience (RE) which reveals the value of retaining multiple perspectives and the value of the trickster in helping us to see things from different angles.

so, it happens that subgroups within the discussion group who are committed to forging 'a single correct interpretation' can get pissed off with tricksters and others who value multiple perspectives as the basis for proceeding by way of experience-based intuition rather than by single-minded theories of science and rationality.

not emile, but clever simulation

Thanks for replying and for the multi-dimensional view of forums, yes, I've always been The Trickster, the critical thinker turning semantic realities in upon themselves, some see it as trolling, alas, it can be lonely when one knows there is no Supreme Truth. One thing I know is that I will revel within the walls of my incarceration because the borders within my mind have been dissolved and a new landscape awaits me. This will not have a Hollywood theme, I will not be violated, I know that those inside are no different to those outside, they just got caught. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. On a lighter note, my girl bought me a cake of soap with a rope passing through it,,,,,,,and said. "For chrisakes hold onto the rope in the shower, because you're beautiful,,,,,,,,"

I like to masturbate in public. In fact, I'm doing it right now!

Well I'll be bent over and, the magnificent irony, the maiden runs to the rescue of the shining white knight in armor and saves him from being man-raped by binarist criminals,,,,,ya believe in karma sunshine?

So let me get this straight; ignoring the usual nonsense from emile and co, the complaining basically amounts to the kids were foolish and didn't listen to me and mean so now I don't frequent anarchist spaces because they're getting lead down the garden path by liberal leftists selling snake oil? Don't you have to wear that, if it's true? Outflanked by the liberals with their shitty analysis and all the anarchist youth are being misled? Instead of doing anything about it, you just gave up?

That's so … incredibly weak. A healthy community would have diverse ages participating. Just as the kids are obviously reckless and have poorly developed theory (because they're kids), the elders are culpable for inventing a thousand rationalizations for why they don't actually do much except sit around and complain. Look in the mirror, anarchist elders.

Leave him alone, you lowliiiives who don't write comments that are +3500 words essays.

If emile has a "great mind", why does he take 10,000 words to say nothing?

Because he's reaching the ontological purity of the great Nothing... a timeless predicament in what partakes to as "inward-outward" relational... (shots being fired, or maybe that was one huge brain fart).

LOL, you aren't from America, are you? America sucks, so like, when the anarchists that are going to stay anarchists interact with liberals that pretend they are anarchists they are like "liberals!" and eventually it sticks, the liberal anarchists realize that they are, indeed liberals and stop being anarchists. The anarchists that called them out later become communists and the ones that weren't paying attention become nihilists. So, its like, impossible to stop the cycle. Being an anarchist is not a permanent thing. It is a stage because communism is still sorely discredited and the anarchists fill the vacuum communists would otherwise occupy. So it isn't about anarchists winning, but rather communists losing. The whole narrative is messed up because anarchists aren't the center of the story and who cares if liberal posers fade away anyway?

I'm from America jr. We're still just naive enough not to die completely of irony and shuffle around as irony zombies

Wow what a comment

There are a number of anarchists who become either liberals or communists as time goes by. This is largely due to anarchists lacking some solid theoretical postulates.

If you look at Bob Black and Peter L Wilson(both American and easily two of the best anarchists of the turn of the 20th-21st century) they both have two things in common, they both make Stirner and Fourier a primary focus. As a result they have been able to achieve a mature anarchist analysis beyond a pure youth and action phase.

I would suggest looking into those two for good mature anarchist analysis. For me it is partly where Anarch/Anarchy come from.

Both authors, in fact, don't make Stirner primary. Bob Black likes communism and is an anarcho-communist. PLW has hella leftist influences too. They have influences from Stirner, but so do I, so who cares, dude was like, from the 1840s. Marx is the synthesis of Stirner and Feurerbach, so like, include him in the mix. Also any number of heads of state, who can see the illusion for what it is, yet have the practical ability to still function and bomb people like anyone else. What I'm saying is your argument is invalid and ideologically loaded.

What you're saying about Black may have been true back in the late 70s-eary 80s but by the time 'The Libertarian as Conservative' was written in 1984 he had ditched the word due to its baggage. He actually does refer to himself as an individualist anarchist nowadays which for him I think means Stirner. He may not use him as heavily as, say, Landstreicher or I do, but he's a heavy part of his views. I've never heard him refer to himself as an ancom though he does like Krops and obviously shares his critique of exchange. Still I think Fourier and Stirner rankn higher.

PLW is friendly towards leftism then BB though I would still say Fourier and Stirner make up a big portion of his ideas. He's also the example of a non communistn or liberal mature anarchist that I am getting at.

Regarding Marx's so called synthesis it's terrible. It's basically a can't shit or get off the pot synthesis. He ends up being a terrible amoralist with a totalizing communist program minus the humanist ethics(what traditional anarchists tend to hand down pat). Stirner is the true and final synthesizer of Hegal with hermetically solid results. Combine him with Fourier-someone with very creative ideas of human arangement-and you have the meaty praxis for solid anarchist analysis.

If it weren't for you, Sir Einzige, no one would be talking about me.

Other people may think that you're nothing but a crypto-fascist troll, but you are A-OK in my book

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and jar of shiny new pennies)

With your comments re
Black and Wilson!

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?
q
U
4
L
R
d
v
Enter the code without spaces.