ITT: we discuss the Anarchist Library, good texts found on it and ways we can help the library.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/For
example, did you know that you can easily edit the texts on the site? It's the pencil icon in the infobox. While reading I take notes of the obvious scanning errors and correct the text when I am finished.
I've also uploaded text before. If you know any texts that would make a good addition to the collection and have a digital copy of it, I might be able to help you get in a shape that can be uploaded.
>>364It's like the Marxist Internet Archive of anarchism. It's fucking fantastic despite some of the trashy screeds posted by sub-splinter tendencies. My favorite text from there is F Perlman's "Against His-Story, Against Leviathan" and the anprim/ultraleft stuff from Camatte, Zerzan, Dauve, and the like.
>ways we can help the library.rm -rf /
>>405Epic, simply epic!
>>404Every time I visit, it's up.
>>415> Workers Against WorkAnyone read this? Based on the first chapter, it seems fascinating.
Kinda trying to raise this thread from the /dead/, but what is everybodys opinion on the Bookchin vs Black argument that even wikipedia credits as essential in coining the term post-feft?http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-social-anarchism-or-lifestyle-anarchism-an-unbridgeable-chasmhttps://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism
I'm half way through Blacks book and even though I agree with alot of his critique of Bookchins text, I still feel the latter has a point.
Sure, bookchin did kinda slapp together alot of his targets among unfitting categories, but many of Blacks attacks seem kinda petty and constructed. Also I really agree with Murray's assessment that social change needs organised action and that individualists negating any such organisation is very harmful.
What do you think?
That is basically what Blacks book is about.
Murray argued that more and more anarchist tendencies were becomming 'lifestylist", by that he means that they rejected organisation and rather focused on living an 'anarchic life in capitalism'.
Black answered by calling Bookchin an old man and a statist.
Holy fuck. Did he ever say why he did this? Or does he just doesn't like drugies?
Apparently it was revenge for Hogshire threatening him with a rifle.
>>788>get threatened with a rifle>waaaaah police arrest this meanie
the absolute state (pun intended) of american "anarchists"
If you materially threaten my life (and thus my freedom), then you are no longer playing by freely associative terms and so I no longer give a fuck about respecting your freedom. In doing so, you go from being a mere nuisance to becoming a social menace, at which point my life and freedom (and those of anyone else subjected to your violence) is more important than yours.
Treat others how you want to be treated. If I were to brandish a rifle at someone, or point it at them, and threaten to literally murder them, I have effectively abandoned playing nice and so should not expect those whose lives I literally threatened to end to simply submit and respect my terror.
Hogshire broke the social contract. Bob Black did nothing wrong.
>>794>social contracts are only a liberal concept
Free association is a social contract. Proudhon articulated an individualist social contract. Social contracts can form from consensus absent a state. The notion that a social contract requires a state is Rousseauian statism.
>What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau's] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, … is substituted for that of distributive justice … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
— Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)
Holy shit dude you are spooked as hell. My mane, any sane person wouldn't give a flying fuck about your immaterial social contract. What fucking kind of justification is that even? 'Oh you didn't follow my personal interpretation of some abstract idea, therefore I'm not even ratting you out because I just want to, but because it's for the greater good, the social contract!' If Bob would just own his actions I would at least respect him a little bit. He got salty for being pointed at with a rifle (which, considering his later behaviour, sounds like something that would happen to him just through ppl not putting up with his general shittyness) and called the cops out of revenge. Even if he had called them cause hes anti-drugs it would be less retarded.
Also, why in gods name are you posting proudhon quotes like they are still applicable or instructive to begin with. What are you? Some tankie in black clothes? If you want to dogmaticly follow outdated ideologies of long dead farts, try /leftypol/.
based retard>If you want to dogmaticly follow outdated ideologies of long dead farts, try /leftypol/
don't act like you're any different bucko
What's wrong with Proudhon?
I guarantee you that I am more radically Stirnerian and post-left than you have ever been in your life.
I did not claim that social contracts are materially real. Social contracts are only as materially real as is any idea, that is to say not at all. This does not detract from their utility as fictions or effects as objects; if it did, then Stirner would not have bothered communicating his critiques in such possessive terms nor concern himself with possession at all. Stirner's critique of spooks principally has to do with the reification of representations, "fetishisation" as Marx termed it (from where do you think he got the idea?), or what Whitehead called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness". Recognising the fictivity of spooks, and thus restoring them to their unreality (in thought and
action), dispels their possession like a fog lifting from your mind to reveal that only you – and uniques like you – remain.
If your understanding of spooks and Stirner amounts to the memes you post about them, then no wonder you treat "spook" as a banishment spell against any notion which confronts and antagonises your spooky ego. If your mother is murdered in front of your eyes, will you be upset? Does the suffering of others not perturb you? Might the closure of bunkerchan be at least an annoyance? If so, then how spooked you are according to your logic! After all, all these responses comprise spectral hauntings in your hollow skull!
Alternatively, what matters here is not the idea or its presence, but whether it is possessed or whether it possesses: that is what makes an idea a spook, and this difference is what distinguishes them.
Did you know that Stirner himself proposed a theory of social contract, too? It is called a "union of egoists", or more appropriately a union of uniques
. By social contract, I refer to the shared values, standards, and repercussions held in common by such a communion. It is the common ground upon which we socially stand, not merely the personal interpretation of a particular unique one but the consensual terms of their free association. What makes this arrangement dispossessed is precisely the fact that the possessors are the unique ones, not the ideas they share.
Hogshire and Black freely associated and their union was determined by their mutual aid and consent. Hogshire violated that union, that social contract, when he literally threatened Black's life and attempted to murder him, largely over ideas
which appeared to have possessed Hogshire. This was not an act of free dissociation, but violence against that freedom. Black did what anyone prudent enough to protect their freedom ought to do and eliminated Hogshire as a threat to himself and others in the least violent way available. Black clearly stated these facts and continues to stand by them.
What you want is not for him to own his actions (which he has), but to repent for the sin of "snitching" against an active threat to his freedom, who violated the terms of free association and affinity constitutive of their hitherto union, and who attempted to kill him. Rather than murdering him with a rifle he could acquire anytime he pleased, he chose instead to let the closest arbitration he could receive (the police) handle it for him, for they were better equipped and trained to handle unstable psychopaths like Hogshire. Hogshire did not die as a result and very well may be out of prison and living his "freedom" making meth in the woods once again. That would not be possible if Black cared so little about Hogshire's life to avoid ending it, a consideration Hogshire did not show him.
I quoted Proudhon to demonstrate that the concept of "social contract" is not inexorably tied to bourgeois statism, that it has a history in anarchism since its modern founding, and that it can be deployed in terms consistent with the post-left anarchy I seek. I thought this was obvious, but you appear to be new to all this, as shown by the trappings you wear and the lack of substance beneath them.
Did Proudhon actually put forward a theory of social contract or was he just shitting on Rousseau? I don't know much about his theories but a quick skim of General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
seems to suggest the latter.
As far as I am aware, Proudhon did not explicitly articulate a theory of social contract in any explicit way comparable to Rousseau. I am not an expert on Proudhon at all though, and may be mistaken. What I gather from Proudhon is that his works themselves were an implicit response to the ideas of Rousseau and others, and a theory of social contract can be more fully constructed from Proudhon's works. The quote above, however, is the only place I know where Proudhon is both explicit and succinct in expressing this, though even that alone suffices to demonstrate that Proudhon was concerned with how a society lacking state power can protect its members without limiting – or whilst minimising the limitation of – their liberty. Consequently, I do not think that passage is merely a casual rebuttal to Rousseau, but rather a glimpse into what much of his writings were about.
There are many brief passages and fragments in the works of philosophers which stand out among the rest, to whose topics they may never even return, but which nonetheless are critical to understanding the philosopher and expanding upon their thought. Two that come to mind for me, which have been immensely influential despite their brevity (including to me), are Marx's "metabolic rift" passages and his favourable quotation of Münzer that "the creatures, too, must become free." The Proudhon passage above seems to me to be at least as defining of Proudhon's entire philosophy as are slogans such as "Property is theft!", albeit without quite the same ring. So whilst the passage may be brief, I caution against underestimating its import; sometimes, lines like that are the culmination of an entire philosophy percolating up from the sea of prose.
>>929>This does not detract from their utility as fictions or effects as objects; if it did, then Stirner would not have bothered communicating his critiques in such possessive terms nor concern himself with possession at all.
Possession has no root in ideas or social contract, rather in my ability. Of course I could use my communicative ability to come to an understanding with others that we do not touch each others possessions, but what's stopping me from still taking your apples? If my ability is strong enough you wont even know I broke the contract, for you it'll still be forfull and a force in the world even though it's rules have long been broken. That's because in the end the contract stays an idea, while my ability is real. This is egoism 101 my mane.
>Recognising the fictivity of spooks, and thus restoring them to their unreality (in thought and action), dispels their possession
So why aren't you recognising the unreality of the social contract? It's no different from any othe spook. Your consensus absent a state is still just in your head. What idea could be so universal that it would be agreed on by everyone to the point of constituting a contract (that is a rule or set of rules which is expected to be followed by everyone partaking, meaning everyone since the contract is social)?
> If your mother is murdered in front of your eyes, will you be upset? Does the suffering of others not perturb you? Might the closure of bunkerchan be at least an annoyance? If so, then how spooked you are according to your logic!
Are you fucking high? My mother dying affecting me emotionally is the fucking opposite of a spook, since her dying is literally a material reality! Where did you get this from? A social contract has no physical reality (as already explained above, i might break it without your knowing and it's still unbroken for you, if you break something material it's broken no matter the perspective). My mother has, at least the last time I checked. Now you might say that my mothers identity as mother definetly has spooky connotations, and I would agree, but my emotional relation towards her is still based on my actual history of percieved existence and growth of my psychè, so the emotional distress would be a subjective reality.
>what matters here is not the idea or its presence, but whether it is possessed or whether it possesses: that is what makes an idea a spook, and this difference is what distinguishes them.
A social contract definetly possesses the partaking individuals. Its boundaries are the boundaries of their actions. If they were the possessors they could step over the lines of the social contract at any time.
>Stirner himself proposed a theory of social contract, too? It is called a "union of egoists", or more appropriately a union of uniques.
Ok. Here it is. What is this shit?
The union of egoists has no rules - no contracts. I can use, abuse and drop the union to my liking. If not I could not partake as myself as a full person, as an egoist at all Of cousre the union can drop me at anytime too, there is nothing guaranteering me memership.
>By social contract, I refer to the shared values, standards, and repercussions held in common by such a communion.
The communion you talk about sounds like it's indeed well placed in a church, but the union of egoists is everywhere we want it to be. Sometimes it's in the bar when we drink with people we otherwise despise, it's in the callcenter when we look out for the asses of colleagues we don't like against our bosses. Shared values, standarts and repercussions make a good party, what constitutes a union of egoists is nothing but our will to constitute it. And if I don't want to anymore, I don't. If there are repercussions for leaving or misbehaving in the union it wasn't one to begin with, at least not if these meassures are justified through the union, which is again abstract so how can it meaningfully constitute reality?
>What makes this arrangement dispossessed is precisely the fact that the possessors are the unique ones
So if I am a unique one, I am able to completly live myself out as I desire, since I am a complete person? In that case there can be no contract, no rules of behaviour, because that's directly contrary.
>Hogshire and Black freely associated and their union was determined by their mutual aid and consent. Hogshire violated that union, that social contract, when he literally threatened Black's life and attempted to murder him, largely over ideas which appeared to have possessed Hogshire.
If they were associating according to contracts, the contracts were the ones acting free, not them. Of course Hogshire had the right (in an egoist perspective) to attack Black since he had the ability, or power, to do it, just as black had the right do defend himself to his power. That's the unspooked truth, but could go as far as their ability because that's how far they could go. Saying one of them had to right to go this or that far constraints his ability so self-express just as much as any other spook.
>This was not an act of free dissociation, but violence against that freedom
What about Hogshires freedom to violence?
>Black did what anyone prudent enough to protect their freedom ought to do and eliminated Hogshire as a threat to himself and others in the least violent way available.
First off, doesn't really seem like Hogshire was a direct threat to anyone really at the time that Black ratted him out. I mean he gave them the information via letter, so he definetly wasn't in the vicinty of Hogshire anymore. Am I supposed to believe that Hogshire is a constant threat because he does drugs and pointed a gun at an asshole one time? Aside from that I'm, as I said before, more disagreeing with Blacks behaviour being justified through some spooked social contract bs than him actually calling the cops (which still is a dick move imo). I mean he calls himself an anarchist?
Considering Proudhon, he is interesting for historical reasons, but most of his views are either useless due to utopianism or spookyness. >Proudhon doesn’t want the propriétaire but the possesseur or usufruitier. What does that mean? He doesn’t want the land to belong to anyone; but the benefit of it—and even if one is entitled to only the hundredth part of this benefit, this fruit—is nonetheless his property which he can deal with as he sees fit. One who only has the benefit of an acre is assuredly not its property owner; still less the one who, as Proudhon wants it, must give up as much of the benefit as is not required for his needs; but he is the property owner of the share that is left to him. So Proudhon denies only this or that property, not property as such.
>Proudhon (also Weitling) believes he is saying the worst about property when he calls it theft (vol). Completely leaving aside the embarrassing question of what well-founded objection one could make against theft, we only ask: Is the concept of “theft” at all possible unless one lets the concept of “property” count? How can one steal if property doesn’t yet exist? What belongs to no one cannot be stolen; you don’t steal the water that you draw from the sea. Consequently, property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property. Weitling also has to come to this, since he indeed regards everything as the property of all: if something is “the property of all,” then indeed the individual who appropriates it to himself steals.
I mean, have you even read Der Einzige?
>I guarantee you that I am more radically Stirnerian and post-left than you have ever been in your life.
Yeah mister "you-can't-threaten-me-or-im-morally-justified-in-calling-the-cops-since-you-broke-the-inmaterial-social-contract", very impressive misreadings you gor there.
Post cool shit to read from this website.
i think bob black is a big shitposter and his roasting of bookchin is 10/10
also, his essay or w/e on rights is legit af
but yeah nah individualists in general need to chill with the anti-organization of any kind shit… i think mass action is in general a pretty dead end for anarchist goals, but also affinity groups have shown their strengths and weaknesses, and damn individual action, thats no fun. Like i think sometimes maybe they can forget the fun and passion that leftism offers? They often critique leftism for stifling people, but i think often people involved in leftist shit dont see it that way, so there's more nuance here than "organization good and necessary" and "organization totalitarian", because it can be both. Sometimes the promise of collective action, having comrades, having huge goals and importantly, actually fighting to win(! this is the thing posties often lose, and its kinda sad to me, yes maybe theres no hope, yes its hard and there are many points where we might have to compromise and be human through it all, but i think we shouldnt give up on social change all together, its a fundamentally fun and empowering and liberating goal to reach for i think and posties are so quick to drop it and embrace an actual lifestyleism of doing drugs and fucking off to the woods or riding bikes more or something and calling that their anarchism, either living off someone else's money or submitting to wage labor. Its hard to get past these things, and not everything is acheivable short term, but fuck how can you live in this world and not wanna at least get out of fucking wagecucking)
anyways bookchin is lame though, idk i read a few things by him and nothing was too memorable. For a while i considered myself a bookchinist or something like that, inspired by him and such, and extolled the wonders of a new world we could have, and had revolutionary communalist dreams, but i had some doubts when known liberals were so eager to agree with me, and i think all in all his vision (his most anarchic vision, even, because he went through an anarchist phase between ML/trot things….) is just a kind reworking of the modern world, which is nice, but i think harmful ecologically and sort of unattainable, and when looked at thru a magnifying glass, hard to differentiate from anti-civ visions, other than its desire to stick to local manufacturing, and the belief that somehow concentrations of power wont beget more power, and yeah i dont know, maybe im just cynical now but i cant see low-level industry that doesnt die out over time and leave from this world, or grow exponentially in order to stay alive.
I really like it, especially this part:>Why can’t we use each other, regardless of our labels and beliefs, until the fight is over and the revolution is won, before we go for each other’s throat for our own vision of the perfect world?
The culture of endless criticism against any movement or org stifles our ability to be effective. It's almost like people are looking for the prefect cause to join, one that is beyond criticism, but that doesnt exist. What a cause labels itself is completly irrelevant compared to what it's actual effects are.
really nice find>>1176>cannibalism is perhaps the only form of subsistence that retains a certain sacred connection to that which is being eaten
how is that an argument for cannibalism? these mystifications, calling 'primitive' behaviour more pure or sacred are nothing but a spook. I really dont get primitivists…
egoists aint anarchistshttps://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sidney-e-parker-archists-anarchists-and-egoists
anarchists want to establish a world without domination - necessarily containing the social norm: you shall not dominate
egoists see domination as a tool which wich to get what they desire, and have no moral or ethical connotations to it
>>1657>necessarily containing the social norm: you shall not dominate
that's not a social norm, it's just the result of everybody being an egoist
What's with bunkierchan and vulgar readings of Stirner?
Instead of empty accusations, how about you actually state what you have issue with and why you believe it to be wrong?
this is silly, you're elevating one person's arguments to some weird egoism canon
just chill n let people have their interpretations, even if yours is right
egoism is like the one thing where you cant derive universal, definitive positive content from it
First, This Clark guy is a massive faggot. I mean>not only domination of subjects by political rulers, but domination of races by other races, of females by males, of the young by the old, of the weak by the strong, and not least of all, the domination of nature by humans.
This is some "unjust hierarchy" tier stuff. Strongly idealist at that. Anarchism is about dispersion of power, making it horizontal, so no individual can assert themself as the ruler. We had that exact dynamic in some phase of our development as species (because our productive forces were so low, that there was no other way). The thing is, we have to find a way to reimplement that idea, but at least keep productive forces on similar level as we have now.
Second,>Every form of life is archistic.
And rest of that quote is built on misunderstanding of biology. I study this shit. Do animals kill? Yes, is it because of need for domination? Eh, kinda. Kinda not. The notion that "survival of the fittest" applies on level of species is bullshit. This was propagated by people like Spencer, who didn't really observe nature in the wild. Animals organise, they cooperate. It might be because of pure instinct, but to me it's more of egoistic need for survival. And to survive you have to enter at least commensal relationship.
Third, those are just little nitpicks not even worth talking about,>Marsden argues that anarchists are among those who, like Christians, seek to muzzle the doministic tendency by urging us to renounce our desires to dominate.
Strawman. My god, if anarchists really think that way, then I will gladly gulag them.>the inviolability of individual liberty
Am I reading article about anarchists or ancaps?>the anarchist would be compelled to turn to a sanction that is but another form of dominationAntifa is the real fascist
This is quite nice article, if you want to criticise larping radlibs and anarkiddies. It also reads like some "why i left the left for epic libertarianism" blogpost.
Now for `vulgar Stirner` bit. It was based only on your little lovely post, but I hope I can write something useful :3>anarchists want to establish a world without domination - necessarily containing the social norm: you shall not dominate
Strawman, as I established earlier.>egoists see domination as a tool which is to get what they desire
First, I prefer to focus on Stirner's critique of spooks and sacred, which is far more relevant in current society and which allows you to not fall into traps you fell into earlier. As for egoist as dominator, a quote>This would be someone who doesn’t know and relish all the joys that come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well, someone who lack countless pleasures — thus a poor sort. […] And now if someone doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism?
This might be true, but is it really egoism if you are haunted by `fixed idea` of being "at the top"? Aren't you just involuntary egoist then? Someone who is animated by spirit to serve only one part of themself, neglecting others?
>>1665>First, This Clark guy is a massive faggot.
Nobody said anything about being obsessed with "the top", the claim was that egoists shouldn't shy away from dominating others if it serves their interest.
>>1667>Power being naturally unequal the struggle for predominance usually settles down into a condition in which the less powerful end up being dominated by the more powerful.
The article did mention it, although it did say it in spooky way, along these lines
<You dominate until someone stronger comes and you can't dominate him, so you settle on your level of dominance
Nowhere it asserts, that a person should stop in their dominance on their own accord, rather it asserts that you dominate as long as you can. This is ultimately a idee fixe I was trying to disprove in your reading of egoism.
This is an actual quote from that article:> The conscious egoist, in contrast, is not bound by any demand for renunciation of domination and if it is within his competence he will dominate others if this is in his interest.
domination is literally impossible without the other party believing in spooks
This might be true, but I am still skeptical given the fact that entire article is riddled with spooks. I mentioned few of them earlier. >>1670
This, unless you literally force people into submission like in the concentration camps (and even that failed given rich history of resistance) you didn't really dominate them.
fuck you marxoid, take your shit takes somewhere else
you obviously dont have a deep understanding of this strain of anarchism or the failings of social anarchists. Literallly just be around enough of these people that Marsden is against and you see clearly all the points.
and your definition of domination is lacking in my eyes. When i think of myself being dominated, it can be my physical restraint or destruction, or maybe my submission. In this way, all heterotrophic life dominates. They live off of the destruction of other beings. There doesnt need to be some super special leftoid pedagogical definition of domination, just a very normal one based on subjective experience of actions. The fact that animals can work together, and can choose to not dominate, doesnt undercut the idea/fact that at some level they need to conflict with and win against
other organisms in order to survive. Domination runs at the very core of life. The plant doesnt ask the soil if it can take nutrients and water. The animal doesnt ask the plant if it can eat it. Sometimes this is mutually beneficial because species evolve over time, and sometimes there is an alliance between species or members of a species that causes them to not dominate each other, but these dont remove the very underlying facts of the need to consume in order to exist. Life is theft. Food is murder. fuck you
Why am I called Marx-oid when didn't refer to anything Marx ever wrote? Anyway.>you obviously dont have a deep understanding of this strain of anarchism or the failings of social anarchists.
This is quite possible, I've mostly read the classics and post-left critique of organisation. >your definition of domination is lacking in my eyes
this_bad_boy_can_fit_so_many_spooks_in_it.jpg>There doesnt need to be some super special leftoid pedagogical definition of domination, just a very normal one based on subjective experience of actions. The fact that animals can work together, and can choose to not dominate, doesnt undercut the idea/fact that at some level they need to conflict with and win against other organisms in order to survive.
True, because that's a tendency
, not hard written rule. Similarly people in communities [b]choose[/b] not to dominate others because it was more beneficial for them in a long run. Even god damn Kropotkin writes about this one>Domination runs at the very core of life
4 u :3c
i called you a marxoid because you talk about productive forces and dont have a very deep understanding of anarchist currents and arguments
sorry about being rude in the last comment though
Anyways I think that you still do not get it. The point isnt about social communities, where we can see an extinction of domination, but about how that life provides the very basics of its existence. So i want to bring your focus back to food, shelter, clothing, etc. (for humans). In every act of any organism feeding itself, it's making available to it some resources or energy that was previously stored and alien to it. This is never a consensual act. It requires the destruction and then re-structuring or burning of this food source. So now i think about if i was food, and it's never something where i dont feel like a victim or looser-out in some conflict. I'd feel like i'd been physically dominated. I dont need to succumb to any self-domination. If i did, yes then there's an ongoing relationship of domination, master and slave,, but this one-time physical domination and then destruction is enough for me. And anyways these longer term oppressive relationships are harder to achieve - they require the victor party to see enough future gain and also have the resources on hand to be able to not take the value of this immediate gain. Anyways… this is my point. Nothing about human societies, but even more fundamental than that. So kropotkin doesnt really factor into it. When we eat, we have to victimize plants and animals. And id argue that even eating fruits and seeds is in the same vein as this victimization - if you look at it historically, what it means when a plant has evolved to go through a digestive tract or have the husk eaten and the seed discarded, is that the plant's whole heritage is one of it's babies being preyed on, and as a species having to cope with that by adjusting to the victimization. It's actually really neat, even looking at human biology, there's not like one hierarchical top-down blueprint thats implemented as we develop and that coordinates tissue and organ growth. The organs themselves are independant. We could say that the human body is a community of different organs working together in order to live. It's relatively communist, because blood flows no matter what, there's no like incentive for a liver to push out more enzymes in order to get more oxygen and glucose to grow more or something, but it's still a social organization of separately developed organs that impact each other. One organ secretes hormones, and it impacts how another grows. Another organ takes in air and extracts oxygen, and distributes it to the blood to be distributed to the other organs, etc. The optic nerve grows into the brain because thats what it does, and it gets blood supply from nearby arteries that it has no control over, and cannot ask to drink from.
This doesnt all apply to human society, because we can
communicate with each other, and we do have concept of rights and consent and everything, but underneath all that there is still this foundation of meeting our needs with organisms that we can't communicate with, and that all we can do is try to respect in whatever way we think is moral/best (e.g. we can choose to maximize our short term use of a thing, our long term use, it's long term survival, maybe some liberal ideas of bodily integrity and rights, maybe some religious idea of spiritual integrity and keeping things pure, whatever). This is fundamentally conquest, and the victor may act with more or less kindness to the one facing destruction.
Anyways i dont take this stuff as any sort of political or philosophical gospel because like i said, there is still a dimension of of communication and cooperation that can exist and flourish between people and some animals. And even if our mercy is delusional sometimes, there's nothing wrong with trying to be humane and act in accordance with the needs and desires of other creatures. But there's also nothing wrong in understanding that fundamentally this is an illusion, and if we want or need, it can be got rid of. And another fundamental point here is that the social anarchist, that is, the anarchist who has some idea for society or of a society to be implemented, they're inherently hypocritical if they think they're against domination, because they represent 'one domination to rule them all' so to speak. Typically they want a social and moral sphere to dominate individuals through democratic sanctions and interpersonal punishment like shunning or withholding commons. This isnt necessarily a bad model, or no worse than what we have now, but it's not without domination, it just has sneaky domination. And that's just on the human field. As long as we hold ownership over land and keep such a high human population on this planet, we're most definitely dominating all other life and policing its' access to land and resources.
And just to touch on your dispersion of power point, i agree that a good anarchism is just dispersion of power, but this power is fundamentally the power to dominate. The domination remains limited, and life goes on. This is acceptable to me, and way better than how things are now. There will always be the chance that i'm struck down by a falling tree or a snake. There's always the chance that i'm robbed and killed. These shouldnt be things to stress about though, as long as power is relatively even. We can always expect to be pushed around or killed at some point, it's only horrifying when it's everyone constantly under a state of perpetual domination, rather than at risk. So i agree with how you think of anarchism, but at the same time we should realize that it's a democracy of conquest. In other words, today it's you, tomorrow it's me. This is a proper balance and allows people satisfying freedom and relative security. This is in no way an end to domination. It may mean a less intensive concentration of domination in general, but there still has to be baseline conquest and domination over other life to live. That's my only contention. (again some people think that domination only exists in a relationship where there's submission involved, but i disagree based on the subjective experience of these things - one is momentary domination, the other is ongoing domination)
not him but that's the most vulgar biologism i've seen to date
R u that wizardinblack guy from Twitter?
>>1685>i called you a marxoid because you talk about productive forces Well, I might've overstated their importance true. >and dont have a very deep understanding of anarchist currents and arguments
Also pretty green about it. I know tad about post-left brand of Egoism and the old school anarchy (pre modern). But anyway!
>In every act of any organism feeding itself, it's making available to it some resources or energy that was previously stored and alien to it. This is never a consensual act. It requires the destruction and then re-structuring or burning of this food source. So now i think about if i was food, and it's never something where i dont feel like a victim or looser-out in some conflict.
I am with you here, I agree with it, but since you don't talk about human societies, as you called it, I fail to see relevance unless you are coming from either ecological angle or vulgar biologism as other anon called it.>It's actually really neat, even looking at human biology, there's not like one hierarchical top-down blueprint thats implemented as we develop and that coordinates tissue and organ growth.
Fuck, you perfectly described what I think of human body, although>The optic nerve grows into the brain because thats what it does, and it gets blood supply from nearby arteries that it has no control over, and cannot ask to drink from.
Optice nerve grows where it grows because this is the only path it can take, it also has certain degree of control over tissues, because it can "ask for blood" by secreting VEGF. This is just a nitpick, but it's important for me, because it strengthens that idea of what you called "human body as a community of different organs working together in order to live". Because of that, your argument>This doesnt all apply to human society, because we can communicate with each other
is nil for me. Because organs DO communicate, although your insight about the fact we only approximate what other party is thinking is still valid.
>But there's also nothing wrong in understanding that fundamentally this is an illusion, and if we want or need, it can be got rid of.
Entire paragraph up to this point is pretty much egoist view. Unique One can live in community and mutually help or be merciful or whatever, but there is nothing stopping her from doing it, when it pleases her Ego. What is important here to me, is that (as you said) humans aren't organs or animals, as Unique One they have no obligation towards other Egos and will refuse to be subjugated. >social anarchist, that is, the anarchist who has some idea for society or of a society to be implemented
Funnily enough, I agree. It's hypocritical of so called "social anarchists" to advocate for "lack of domination", while their system is grounded in imposing certain rules. This is also why I don't hold this views tbh.
Your last paragraph approximates really well how I see this. It's not some kind of anarchist utopia, just life with tad more decentralized power. maybe some socialist mode of production.
Although, I'd love if you could expand on this idea of domination without the dominated. This is something I want to discuss, because I still fail to see this view as valid. Despite first paragraph of your post.
no sorry, i don't twitter>>1701
glad we agree on so much of the basics!
so on what you wanted me to expand, i think how i'll answer that is just trying to repeat my view of domination and it's necessity, and then repeat or expand on what are maybe semantic hangups between us (though i feel like the only reason i somewhat endorse the archism essay is because i identify domination in such a way, and that way seems consistent with the text).
My main points with the domination thing are just that a) for domination to occur, the victim doesn't have to submit to the dominating force, there can be pure domination of force and extermination is a short-lived domination (i agree with the general anarchist sentiment that the real danger is a relationship, especially socially-codified ones, of long-term domination), and b) that this type of domination is present no matter what we do, so there's no point in making a crusade against it, because a crusade against domination is a crusade against life itself. As for this second point, i've already sort of spelled out the reasons i guess, so i hope adding this concise version of my view does the heavy lifting here, but basically i have to dominate the world around me - i have to fight it and win, and take it's life, and this is at the most utopian, the most primitivist - in order to survive and live, and everything that lives does this. There is domination when the coyote eats a mouse. It's not in some general way of coyote-the-species dominates mouse-the-species, but that specific coyote has dominated that specific mouse. The mouse has been bested and is at the full control and mercy of the coyote, for moments before it's dead and it's body is assimilated into the victors' nonconsensually. So like (sorry i took a long time writing this cause i got occupied and i kinda lost my train of thought and got drunk) this is why it's stupid to try to put yourself as totally anti-domination - in the face of the necessities of reality it doesnt leave the possibility for it's own existence. So i say that as an anarchist, i'm for domination, and for the cultivation of power, but instinctively against it's accumulation. I still understand the leftist position that the power of the average person is also my power, but at the same time i dont see that as a reason to demonize domination, but instead to forge alliances in order to dominate better and dominate the ones who have walled off domination from the rest of us.
And on the semantics - yeah whatever im ready to go to bed you probably have some different definition here, i guess if i had to analyze how i talk about domination it's something like gaining complete power over someone or something. I think that basically all power though is in a sense "complete", because all power is fully situational and qualitatively unique - there's never a "contest of powers" where both sides sort of use some metric of "power" that can be equal and then there is "power" but no "power over", i dont buy this as a reality in any way (at least not at the moment - my mind is open to being convinced, but i'd go stubbornly). For some people, domination is a human-on-human category, but i think that's bullshit because fuck anthropocentrism. Also for some it's only this long-term relationship or necessitates submission. To these people, i ask how much better it is if you don't submit, or if you're destroyed relatively quickly. Sure it probably is better, but only in duration and dignity i think, there's no profound qualitative shift beyond the giving up of dignity and agency in submission, and the lengthening of the sentence.
Also on organs talking to each other: i think you're right, i mean i also think you're wrong in that they dont have much free will in how to respond to the "communication", so chemical signals can be seen as coercion, but then there's a similar argument to be made for humans in response to acoustic signals. On anarchist on a dead forum that i talked to tried making the argument that all communication has the end goal of coercion, or changing someone, necessarily against their will or without their ability to meaningfully consent. I dont know how much i agree, but it seems right in a way. I think people who focus on agency/"free will" give some magical quality to the extra amount of levers and loops and mixing pools of data in our heads, rather than seeing it as a more complex and convoluted version of the same thing as reacting in the only chemically possible way to chemical signals. At the same time, it's hard to not do that myself
>>1705>a) for domination to occur, the victim doesn't have to submit to the dominating force, there can be pure domination of force and extermination is a short-lived domination
True, anarchists tend to gloss over short-lived domination, I am not sure any theory even discusses it at length. Even nihilists with their negation tend to recognize any kind of domination as systemic, existing because current order permits it.>i have to dominate the world around me
would you say that you have to make world your property, then? It's interesting to see that someone extends Stirnerian view of Unique One to all living things, not just humans.>it's stupid to try to put yourself as totally anti-domination
If you define domination like that, then I am forced to agree with you.>i'm for domination, and for the cultivation of power, but instinctively against it's accumulation. I still understand the leftist position that the power of the average person is also my power, but at the same time i dont see that as a reason to demonize domination, but instead to forge alliances in order to dominate better and dominate the ones who have walled off domination from the rest of us.
While I don't agree that power for the people is also the power for me (it's only mine if I am able to influence other people to do something that's in my interests), I am amazed how honest you can be in your train of though. This is something anarchism needs these days. People who neither cling to idealistic notion of "no domination" nor try to hide their true motifs, but say plain and simple that we are here to>forge alliances in order to dominate better and dominate the ones who have walled off domination from the rest of us
It makes community the first and foremost goal. Although I am scared that this kind of formal organisation can quickly degenerate into org that only tries to help those inside of it, as had happen many times, even in Concentration Camps.
>there's never a "contest of powers" where both sides sort of use some metric of "power" that can be equal and then there is "power" but no "power over"
So, you see it as binary state? Either someone has power and dominates or doesn't and her breach of your autonomy simply doesn't happen? I disagree, but not because it's not a viable model. I want to expand the fact that in order to have "power over" someone, you first have to sacrifice some of your resources. As you said about a fox, he too has to constantly wager whenever dominating over a mouse will be beneficial for him. I agree that you can't compare power itself (because it's situational and unique), but I think in your analysis you deny defense and instead focus on how it's all or nothing, neglecting resources and losses.>domination is a human-on-human category, but i think that's bullshit because fuck anthropocentrism
This one I am actually kinda angry at. You HAVE TO BE anthropocentric here. Why? Because while you can describe the nature using these categories, you are saying that from human perspective. Not from fox's, not from mouse's, only human. You are too engaging in anthropocentrism here, just not as visible. I have nothing against using animals/nature/plants as similes, because their archetypes are ingrained in our culture and we can analyse their behavior to sorta gauge ours (though not fully), but still. Domination is human-on-human category, because even if we use it to describe animals, we do so in human terms. To (jokingly) summarize. "How can I understand what lion is saying, if I don't understand the world he inhabits?"
>on organs talking to each other: i think you're right, i mean i also think you're wrong in that they dont have much free will in how to respond to the "communication"
Oh right. I've been doing some thinking and I might've misled you. Organs evolved for really long time together, it's not "communication" anymore. Cancer cell says "vascularise" and capillaries obey. Why? Because of they don't have any choice, they aren't preprogrammed to say "no", it's for the "common good", after all.>all communication has the end goal of coercion, or changing someone, necessarily against their will or without their ability to meaningfully consent. I dont know how much i agree.
Yes, I do.>people who focus on agency/"free will" give some magical quality to the extra amount of levers and loops and mixing pools of data in our heads, rather than seeing it as a more complex and convoluted version of the same thing as reacting in the only chemically possible way to chemical signals.
I see it both full determinism and full "free will" as vulgar. Plain and simple. Because of random movement of chemicals in our brain, there is no guarantee that full determinism holds. As for free will, it isn't true either. After all, our brain automates a lot of stuff behind our back. Question is, how much?
>>1806>would you say that you have to make world your property, then? It's interesting to see that someone extends Stirnerian view of Unique One to all living things, not just humans.
I think this is the sort of "party line" take from what ive seen, maybe not though. I think of it from sort of the psychedelic point of view, like "Everything is connected" etc. I love the wordplay of stirner, because he plays with property and property-of, like characteristic. So in a sense the world is a property of me (subjectively). This meshes really nicely with psychoanalytic views too, and some eastern philosophical traditions like zen and taoism. Actually it's thought that stirner might have studied taoism or something, apparently. I'm writing this after writing the second paragraph, and i just wanna add here that this meshes with the idea of self-domination or self-power. There's this sort of mobius strip, on one side there's having power over myself, and on the other there's having power over the world, and the curve is defined by the lack of differentiation between myself and the world, in both directions. E.g. I am similarly just a thing in the world, stardust, undifferentiated in a way (once you lose the idea of a solid "I" - the only "I" might just be the observer, but i dont even personally like that idea, because different thinking machines in my brain talk with an "I" so in a way "I" is the whole mental society, but i think what it represents is a helpful fiction, like the idea of "the state". Where can you find the state? it doesnt exist. It's a body without organs in day to day life, and the magic of theorists and philosophers is turning that into a "self" or a whole body by naming the thing), and on the flip side, the whole world that i experience exists solely in me. We all harbor a (simplified) universe and a whole life of experiences and a whole world of symbols and "things" that the world is populated with. So here "my property" is this sort of circular, thing that makes up me, and thing that im making mine, and all the while over here on the side officiating this dialectical relationship is the notion that i am the world, that there's not a fine difference between what is made me, what is me, and what makes me.
>So, you see it as binary state? Either someone has power and dominates or doesn't and her breach of your autonomy simply doesn't happen?
no no, i mean all power is a situational and qualitatively different power than any other, so it cant really be quantified, and that's why i don't think "equal power" is ever a goal, where everyone's power cancels out the power of others around them. I dont think this is possible. Also all domination is situational and and in a way a spectrum, where sometimes you get beat but get away, etc. Hm maybe i am thinking of it like a binary actually, but yeah i see that there's defensive power as well, but i was putting that as power over yourself. I dont have anything profound to say on this, ill just leave it.
>This one I am actually kinda angry at. You HAVE TO BE anthropocentric here, etc.
Hmm, i dont totally understand what you're saying here to be honest. I understand that everything we talk about is in human terms from a human subjectivity, but what i meant was that there's no reason to not apply the sort of material reality that exists when domination happens, and then look and apply domination backwards to everything that embodies that material reality. Does that make sense? Like if we can look at a human relationship and say "this is a domination" even without asking the participants how they feel about it, we can do the same for the interaction between humans and animals, humans and plants, plants and animals, animals and animals, plants and plants, etc. So i just mean that only allowing it to apply to humans is the anthropocentrism. I am
against though moralizing domination between animals (obviously), because i think that's exactly the kind of anthropocentrism you talk about. But i dont know, i dont totally understand this paragraph.
>our brain automates a lot of stuff behind our back. Question is, how much?
this has been really interesting to me lately. I think basically…. a lot. And some stuff is automated "in front of our back", like we see it but we dont participate actively in a way. Or the consciousness is aware of it after the thing is done, but it's also aware of the process and in some sense what is done. This stuff all fascinates me though.
>>1808>anthropocentrism, But i dont know, i dont totally understand this paragraph.
I didn't structure it well enough it seems, or I misunderstood your point. I am in a camp that asserts that pointing out examples of domination (which is human) in animals is already anthropocentrism. Because of that I oppose conflating "the human" and "the animal" (even though I am aware we are one and the same).
There is real possibility that we are passangers who think that we do have an agency. But this is a topic I tend to sever myself from, because it isn't a proper question. Whenever we have free will or not doesn't change the thing. We still feel like we have the agency.
why not both? Although prolle stroll at least is pretty kek at times>The moment we drank John Zerzans cum was the same moment-in-time that we became human again>The ghost of lenin showed his face as he warned: "Don't fuck with time". The proles on their strol only respond with, "we detroy time like eggs under out collective boots".
yeah on the brain stuff, it's sort of a malformed question in light of maybe a more accurate or holistic idea of the self. The question of "free will" or "agency" makes sense if you use the pretty normal idea of the individual, but once you question that, the sort of exciting or scary aspect of "but you make the decision before you know it" kinda goes away, like that part of me that decided, it's still "me" in a sense, at least I experience it as me, and really it's in a place that the logical part can't really critique well, except maybe abstractly. Like it decides how to mediate the various residues, the output of the myriad desiring machines, etc., and that output is
discrimination. Not that it can't be changed in how it decides, but it's decision is sort of my decision, on right and wrong, what to do, what part of me to listen to, etc., you know?
join the discussion, don't just read it
prolle strolle in words with me
It was very rambly, but I think I do. It's true that we shouldn't focus really on "free will" vs "determinism", at least until we answer what does "self" even mean.>ike it decides how to mediate the various residues, the output of the myriad desiring machines
This part especially speaks to me deeply. We aren't just "our brain", we are our guts (who also might mediate the decision making), hearts (same), microbiota (which has huge impact on brain. I can't underplay that, it influences how Alzheimer, etc develops), and so on and so on.
Hey, do we have a single jannie right now? We need someone to re-pin this thread, and the rules thread too.
Just asked on /meta/ wait a little
This thread was never stickied tho
Was this purged from the library?
aragorn dies and things go to shit…. smdh
Thank the retarded German splitter and Aragorn! Dying, I guess.
Honestly A! Was foundational to anarchist online infrastructure in english and all you people did was shit on him constantly. Sad.I miss my marshmallow nihilist
So next week there will be some protests here, I was thinking about giving out some short panphlets or something like that here. What one page essay, paper, pamphlet do you guys recommend?
write your own, about what you care about
can't get more applicable than what a local thinksposties dont need converts, who cares if some nerd picks up a pamphlet with an essay written on it, reads it, and decides he likes stirner or tiqqun on some gay like that. Speak to the situation and help advance people's consciousness with your grimoire of spooks :P
I should've mentioned that it's just a right-wing protest, I just wanted some random stuff to get some turmoil going on. Not really worth my time, but hey, I don't have money to go anywhere that day so I might as well have some fun.
then i guess print flyers of their fav right wing politician eating a bunch of dicks or something idk
call them cucks and tell them if they're cool they'd be real men and read Dora Marsden so they can learn to not be such wusses
Kek maybe I am doing this.
Although this is the first time I am doing this, and I am alone. This is a very secluded shithole so I am the only anarchist here, I don't think anyone has ever done anything similar to what I am trying to do so that's nice. Any tips?
take yellow cartrige out of printer
Do any of you know this site? It seems to be using the same software: https://archive.elephanteditions.net/special/index
Yes. Elephant editions have been around a long time. Those people ([email protected]
, ea) all know each other. Why?
Reading plays is cringe
Why is that? I like to read plays.
You can listen to this reading but it is not that good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT6VNApKL3E
>>1665>As for egoist as dominator, a quote
Oh, boy, oh, boy, do I love it when egoist secular humanists misuse that quote of Stirner as an argument. Wolfi has already warned egoist anarchists about how overquoting Stirner can turn The Unique and Its Property into a bible. We had so much expansion on the Stirnerian thought: Renzo Novatore, Emma Goldman, Dora Marsden, James L. Walker, Sidney Parker, post-leftists. Yet here we are. Regardless, the interests and passions of Stirner are not the interests and passions of every conscious egoist ever. Universalizing compassion would be trivializing the drives, desires and personality traits of egoists that are unique to them and returning to an idea of a "human nature" (or may we call it "egoist nature") that Stirner was trying to escape. Not everyone is able to leverage the same joy from compassion as others. Not everyone needs to. Heck, psychopaths aren't able to feel empathy at all, for Unique's sake. Are they somehow less egoistic than other conscious egoists? I don't think so.
>This might be true, but is it really egoism if you are haunted by `fixed idea` of being "at the top"?
Good point. There's certainly something spooky about being obsessed with political power, not helped by the fact that those who became rulers by ruthlessly disposing of their rivals having some spooky idealistic vision of the future, be it Stalin or Hitler or whatever the fuck. But the opposite is also a spook, the claim that a conscious egoist must deny domination. It becomes a kind of a vice for an egoist, a moralistic taboo, which is obviously against what Stirner stands for. As Jason McQuinn put it: "Whatever you do, get away with it."
Conscious egoists ARE Machiavellian. As Walker said, the ruling class are conscious egoists who rule the world while the rest of us are in confusion. I grappled with this fact for weeks and the best objections to becoming a dictator were made by Egoism Simplified and Dr. Bones:https://yewtu.be/embed/z2TsnpZ1WLo?start=195&end=221https://yewtu.be/embed/NcsmFQX_kDk?start=540&end=599https://yewtu.be/embed/jD0dJjP1jSk?start=4005&end=4107
>Strawman. My god, if anarchists really think that way, then I will gladly gulag them.
I think Marsden is referring to traditional anarchists who follow humanist ethics, not to egoist anarchists. The same way that Nietzsche did. Even Stirner criticized Proudhon extensively. They rely on morality instead of force as a backbone of their anarchist vision. They go so far as to proclaim that anarchism cannot be built without us spooking ourselves with egalitarian ethics. Just look at C4SS's articles on egoism. Very moralistic.
not the anarchist library, but marxists.org added a bunch of stuff to their fredy perlman archive from revoltlib.com last year while i wasn't looking
some of this stuff isn't on the anarchist library yet, too
Which ones are missing let's put them up!!
Unique IPs: 11