Have not watched anything Star Wars. Should I watch Andor?
Yes
No
Poll ended at .
mastadon's illegitimate child
- 37 Followers
- 132 Following
- 55 Posts
hoping to do exactly the same level of shitposting (a lot) and intellectual posting (hardly) as i did on Twitter || rootless cosmopolitan and cute-dressed anarchist || mostly here to steal memes and post them a few months later || going to screenshot your posts and store in my gallery cause i love discourse || cancel culture is just <freedom of association + freedom of information> and if you oppose that you are against the agency of people || (they/them)
There's this interesting paper called Against Prefiguration: An Anarchist Iconoclasm by Frankie Hines in the latest Anarchist Studies journal and I think it raises very important points but I think a lot of those problems go away if one espouses anarchy as scale-independent and is consequentialist, as @rechelon does, in their ethics.
Interesting points it raises includes:
1. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism is an outlier in the sense of being a non-prefigurative politics, whereas anarchism, liberalism, fascism are all prefigurative consistently and the emphasis on prefigurative politics in anarchist self-understanding is a result of trying to distinguish it from Marxism.
2. Anarchist prefiguration entails pacifism. Pacifism is wrong. Therefore, we must reject prefiguration. (The author doesn't say we should give up on means and ends as such, but rather using prefiguration as a central defining feature of anarchism)
My problem is also that this account seems to treat all actions as same types of actions. Like vanguardism and violence need not both be accepted or rejected because they are not similar types of things to prefigure about/against. For example, we oppose vanguardism because it is non-anarchic; we oppose violence only when it is done for unethical ends or when it is ineffective strategically/tactically. So the kind of worries that may motivate this article seem to me to be misplaced because they are based on a sense of equivocation.
Similarly, if anarchy and therefore anarchism is scale-independent, then questions of prefiguration or the relation between means and ends is a secondary aspect that we concern ourselves with, no matter how important. This means that we practice anarchism not simply because we want to create anarchy through our actions (which we do) but that's what anarchism implies. If scale-independence is prefiguration, then perhaps Hines is wrong to say that all political ideologies are prefigurative. But I think scale-independence and prefiguration are related but non-identical concepts.
noBonzoneither to rule
nor be ruled
download link for coloring page https://ufile.io/e57fzqyw
There's this book I have been wanting to hate read for a while called How Not to Be Governed: Readings and Interpretations from a Critical Anarchist Left because two of the authors are not even like anarchists AFAIK from their other writings (George Ciccariello-Maher & Jacqueline Stevens), and one other has written really esoteric books about "anarchism" and some prophets (James Martel).
@rechelon what's the Harold Barclay book that discusses ostracism? Is it People without Government or something else?
William Gillis 🏴Can't believe I only just noticed this but there's a strong excludedness on conjoining antinatalism with a disbelief in a continuing self.
Antinatalists often argue that it's fine for us to continue living, we just shouldn't reproduce new lives, but if you don't believe in a continuing self, going to sleep without offing yourself equals consigning future agents to hell just as much as having a child. Antinatalists HAVE to either hold some really repugnant views or a really silly one (the self).
Mentioning anti-Nanda critiques for reading whenever you end up working on that piece. This guy is acknowledged by Nanda as one of her fiercest critic in Prophets Facing Backward.
Sundar Sarukkai. "Science, Knowledge and Society", Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 34, No. 13 (March 27 - April 2, 1999), pp. 779-784.
narcissusFinally wrote a new thing for Immer Autonom!
Please consider the CWs listed at the top of the article carefully before reading -- the material discussed in this essay is likely to be intensely triggering for some readers, especially those with a history of abuse.
But we really, really need to have a talk about this.
"Attacking individuals for a structural problem" is sometimes the first step in bootstrapping a structural solution.
Making one more racist afraid to be openly racist is a good first step in rolling back the perpetuation of racism. It's certainly far more productive than voting and thinking that will make any headway to structural change. One vote isn't going to tip the scales, but one more racist too afraid to act is a substantive step towards every racist being afraid to act.
nerd teacher 🦇- stop and question people who are doing CSA apologia while claiming to support youth liberation, especially when they conflate the latter *and* child sexuality with the ability of adults and teens to "consensually" engage in sexual relationships *with each other*... but we'd have to remember to actually care about kids and teens beyond using them as talking points;
- stop and question people who engage in SWERF talking points, even if they are a sex worker of any sort;
- question our reactions to learning about abuse and rape and why it is that we're willing to let people who "do good work" sit in our spaces even as they hurt people and never do anything to even attempt repairing the situation *they* created;
- interrogate why we often let people say shit about, like, entering sexual relationships in order to "radicalise people" and not engage with what that generally means (also maybe we should think about why it is that there are people who use organising and activist spaces explicitly to get laid).