this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Socialism

2842 readers
14 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
OneRedFox@beehaw.org
0
We are not afraid of ruins: On violent takeover of our home and social center Syrena by macho-anarchists (theanarchistlibrary.org)
submitted 1 year ago by EthicalAI@beehaw.org to c/socialism@beehaw.org
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is crazy

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The pre-colon title is apposite as a quote from an anarchist soldier during a civil war. It was a response to a reporter asking how he felt about winning and "sitting on a pile of ruins."

“You must not forget, we also know how to build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and in America, and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth, there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute.“

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This just doesn’t look good for anarchy tbh. Every time I’ve seen anarchy in action it’s, well, anarchy. They hate “states” but form councils? They hate states but fight micro wars with other anarchist groups? I think they just end up reinventing liberal democracy tbh. That’s why I’m more minarchist I think.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How would a monarchist solve the problem of another monarchist group using violence to impose a patriarchal system on their group?

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im just saying they are already statist. They are doing everything states do. So your question isn’t really much of a gotcha.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This isn't a 'gotcha' game. I'm giving you an opportunity to explain the words you're using, so I can better understand how you have come to an apparently self-refuting conclusion. I'm glad that my assumption was correct that you must be using a words in ways they weren't intended. Are you just posting to 'dunk' on anarchism, or do you want to be understood?

You are a 'statist' then. What functions would a minarchist state perform?

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Pretty much exactly what their state performed. War, courts, police.

I’m looking to form my worldview better. I started out more Chomsky-esc, believing in the elimination of unjust hierarchies. But I’m told he’s more minarchist because all hierarchy is unjust. But it’s obvious that the elimination of hierarchy historically just leads to the creation of new hierarchy’s, and I think this article is a microcosm of that. I’ve never even been able to run a public interest group without a constitution for the group, excommunication of troublemakers, etc. That’s called a state.

So my intention isn’t to argue what I personally believe the state to do. It’s to say that they are minarchists whether they want to be or not. They formed a council (court), formed a mob to kick out a member (police), and participated in a war with a neighbor (military). Even as a small society that was unavoidable, imagine doing it with a city.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chomsky self-identifies as an 'libertarian socialist', which is widely regarded as a synonym for or category of anarchist, I don't know what authoritative source told you he's a minarchist. I've usually heard 'minarchism' used as a synonym for capitalists of the Libertarian Party persuasion. There's a lot of disagreement about where the ontological borders of anarchism are, and it sound like someone who disagrees with Chomsky is trying to metaphorically push him outside of those borders rather than engage with his ideas.

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, in your own words, how would you summarize each of those articles? If you want to discuss them perhaps putting each in their own thread would be convenient.

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The first one basically says that Chomsky is a minarchist. He starts with basic definitions of an-archy meaning “not” an “archy” which means state. That Chomsky has redefined anarchy to suit a liberal white middle class reader (hey that was me!) to just mean “less government” or “less hierarchy” which is functionally libertarianism which exaggerated would be minarchy. He makes a good point that there’s almost no difference between that view and classical liberalism. He quotes some 1800s anarchist book that inspired Chomsky and chews into it.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ziq seems to be primarily a prominent poster on raddle.me. I don't want to say he's not a significant anarchist thinker, but it makes me wonder if some of the posts the decade+ I've been posting about anarchism on internet forums maybe belong in the Anarchist Library also.

I'm not super familiar with his work, but he sounds like someone from the anti-civ branch of anarchism. It's very popular in this branch to represent themselves as the only true exemplars of anarchism, so a forum personality denying Chomsky his due is pretty on message. Franklin López of The Stimulator fame came up from this trend, but it also includes Deep Green Resistance and Derek Jensen; there's some troubling concordances with eco-fascism, 'bio-truth', and trans-exclusionary philosophies.

Unlike the C4SS article this looks like something worth analyzing, as they seem to have done some research. I don't have time now, but might come back to it later, especially if there's interest.

I do find the use of 'minarchist' here unusual also. Contrary to the C4SS article, minarchist is a bad thing in context. Ziq does seem to be using minarchist to mean a kind of authoritarian or capitalist, but it's strange language to use. It seems like a rhetorical trick in that calling Chomsky this very specific, underutilized word that usually means capitalist sounds less ridiculous on the face of it than saying plainly that Chomsky is an authoritarian or capitalist, actually.

[–] EthicalAI@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Lol now I think I pissed off the Raddle community by participating on their anti-tech anti-civ threads