why are so many[*] anarchists also lifestylists, moralists, christians, essentialists, superstitious, etc and not schmittians, hobbesians, machivellians, sadeans, nechayevites, nihilists, etc. instead of acknowledging that hirearchy and authority exists objectively and that its not intrinsically "good" or "bad" so you can do whatever you want with it, they accept authority only if its the Good™ Authority, ie moral authority, the authority of god, the authority of a parent pushing their child out of the way of an oncoming car or w/e other example they use for "just" hirearchy.
it always seemed strange that an anarchist would ever accept an authority to deem what is "just" and what is not.
[*]inb4 i know the first sentance is a vague generalising presupposition, im basing it upon stereotypical internet anarchists like r/anarchism as well as the history of christian anarchism being much more developed and prevelant than say christian marxism, and mystics like hakim bey, etc, if you are an anarchist who is or is not like this pls articulate your position and critique other anarchists
>>2249759if someone was on life support that required them to be physically plugged into me like an iv, and it affected my mobility, but to remove them from me would kill them, what is the most "mutually beneficial" action? personally if i was in such a situation i would not be concerned at all about "mutual benefit" but about my
own benefit, and would seperate myself without remorse or delusions of morality.
>>2249858 (me)
>>2249868I am OP? I was interested in the possibility of Anarchism from a position less concerned with the modern Liberal "Authority-Liberty" dichotomy, and wanted to gauge whether or not any Anarchists on this board had similar positions?
>>2249924Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and binder its radical elimination. It is understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a mere storehouse of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. This tendency can be expressed by the word Marxism, and there is hardly need to add that we stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, and opportunist “corrections” for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion. But although we shall discuss all questions from our own definite point of view, we shall give space in our columns to polemics between comrades. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views, but even of various localities, or various “specialities” of the revolutionary movement, inevitably fall. Indeed, as noted above, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the effort to conceal differences on fundamental questions.
>>2249738Because the vast majority of Anarchists, and Western Leftists are not actually that seriously interested in politics or political economy or even philosophy. The Western left is nothing more than the modern form of the 1970s/80s Punk movement. People say "Counter culture died in the 2000s" but the reality is with social media and Tumblr it transformed into Political themed subculture.
Western leftists (not only Anarchists, even tonnes of ""ML's"")are against Heiarchy because Punks have always been ANARCHY \m/ FUCK THE MAN ACAB! WOOOO
>>2249744Daily reminder that my friend worked for AG department (in quite a high role) 15 years ago and told me Anarchists were the group they had most infiltrated alongside Islamists.
>>2250795Because they do nothing but take credit for past comrades' revolutions while talking shit online.
>But ChinaYou're not Chinese and you're not in the goddamn CPC, I want to praise someone for reducing China's poverty level I'll praise them, not you for agreeing with them.
>>2250883Storytime. Post more about this friend.
>for AG departmentWhat is this.
>>2249738>and not schmittians, hobbesians, machivellians, sadeans, nechayevites, nihilists, etc. instead of acknowledging that hirearchy and authority exists objectivelyThen they wouldn't be anarchists.
Hobbes is peak Statism along with Plato with the corporatist & unitary aim of Leviathan.
>why are so many[*] anarchists also lifestylists, moralists, christians, essentialists, superstitious, etcI have observed Ancaps, so my opinion will stem from them:
It is a desperate bid to bypass the need of human rulers by appealing to these.
Ancap is like a low church prot in thinking he only needs the NAP to mediate human affairs like a prot only needs his Bible.
They think an appeal to values by themselves will suffice to govern a people without any rulers.
I notice Ancaps like Catholicism in particular because they see the Church as another private organization in opposition to Statism. For them the Church is an Anti-State.
It is stupid to me, but this is what you get.
I've always saw a link between their love for utopian ideals like Kropotkin over actual theory and analysis leads them into all sorts of literary revisionism to build more fantasies to fall into. I saw an "Islamo-anarchism" before and Islam is probably the least Anarchistic religion on earth because from cover to cover it repetitively shames the listener for not immediately conceding to a central authority (God -> the prophet -> the leader of the Ummah…). The flag is ironic.
I also don't think it's a generalization to focus on the hypocrisy among anarchists because from Proudhon, to Bakunin, to Nechayev, to modern day Redditors they always start introducing "authoritarianism", that they just relabel to hide the contradiction. The most obvious example is their assertion of "horizontal authority" to deal with the structural necessity of authority to manage the means of production. You also have Bakunin/Nechayev "secret societies" of "professional revolutionaries" who dictate from the top-down, though I'll concede most of them don't idolize Bakunin these days.
It's no coincidence a common cliche of anarchists is to tell other anarchists to stop reading. I find ironic echos to my past, falling out of Islam because I started to have questions, and I was told that it is "sinful" to ask "tough questions." I found the same sentiment in Anarchist communities, which are *always* dogmatic hellholes, where they give up all critical thinking towards some imaginary authority. In reddit terms, it would be the mods and in real life it was the more popular/senior people in the group who the group were better friends with. These people, or group of people, would always hold the "correct" line, despite them *never* engaging in any sort of study and this was accepted readily by the "lesser" members of the community. They abhor critical thought, if it isn't "approved" prior. None of the questions I posed were met with any serious, concrete analysis, instead I would get answers to questions like "how do you punish people for crimes if prisons are abolished" with "in anarchism, nobody will feel the need to commit crimes." It's heaven.
Engels, in Socialism, Scientific and Utopian called "his" socialism "scientific" only to juxtapose it with this utopian socialism that they characterized as no different from religion, rather than it literally being a science. There, you can see the obvious connection to why anarchists would try to attempt to reify religion with anarchism, because their belief in anarchism is the exact same type of belief as religion. They are fulfilling a psychological need to submit to an authority, even if their own ideology ostensively commands them to hate authority. They need to believe God exists and he's on "their" side. Their problem actually lies with bureaucracy, and if you research something like "Christian anarchism" it always stems from some conflict with the greater church, so they go live in the woods to do their own thing. I've even seen them refer to these bureaucratic structures as "artificial" which echos the same sentiment the Christian anarchists had towards certain church structures. It demands the existence of a metaphysical, "true" structure, that they follow.
Or it could just be that they're dumb and wear the label as a fashion accessory like so many communists do.
Unique IPs: 23