Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism?
I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?
Also, gotta love the whole "I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that's what anarchism is about". Like, buddy, you haven't read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.
Check the newest comment from them.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
This is indefensible trash trying to paper over the immense absurdity of their nonsensical worldview, not in being an anarchist but in failing to understand anything about existing political systems. "Social murder? Is that the name of your new band?"
The absolute audacity to call class analysis "vague" because they haven't read a book in their fucking life.
yeah sure, just like nobody's racist unless and until they scream the N word in your face
It's a good thing the bourgeoisie aren't pointing a gun at you every day.
as long as you can pay your rent!
Yours is the more important point, but I'll add on: What about them punching other people? Do you not care for them? If you do care, then it seems like you have a shit ton of enemies and the framing is vapid, doing nothing but fixating on an individualist affect that undermines solidarity with the oppressed.
Would like to see their definition of violence if a remote town was to black ban them from acquiring food or transport.
Agreed, perhaps I'm being too generous. My standards are very low.
If there's one thing liberals are good at, it's taking their own severe ignorance and pretending it is actually wisdom.
I will admit that I don't actually know that much about class analysis. The material I consume is more focused on critique of authority, decentralised organisation and production, things like that. Which is why I think class analysis is redundant as it is already covered under critique of authority. Except authority focuses on the actual actions that people take instead of their positions, and it covers representative democracy as well.
But I still think it's a valid framework, not just one that I would use.
And if you think I haven't read anything I've posted a list as a response in this thread.
Class isn't authority. There are inter-class authorities, and intra-class authorities. In my opinion, the latter aren't bad and are often cases necessary and useful, but that's more into Marxism. Anarchism needs class analysis because it informs anarchists on what the weak points and points of contention in capitalist society are. The working classes stand in opposition not to any vague concept of authority, but instead are a part of a complex system of circulation, production, and distribtution that is regularly centralizing.
Anarchists that wish to decentralize society need to understand how to counteract this centralizing force. Marxists push it forward into collectivization and democratization, while anarchists instead typically go for prefiguration and community aid. In either case, though, these forces must be understood in order to act, and these forces are determined by class, as they aren't simply abstractions but a real material system that functions in the material world.
It's not vague because I haven't read theory. It's vague because the things I've read are contradictory and the only way to encompass all of them is to be vague.
I understand existing political systems. I want to destroy them. I'm not focusing my time and energy into doing it because no-one is, so it seems pointless. You achieve nothing marching alone, and the moment others join they are going to have better idea what to do than I do.
Ok, sounds to me like they simply walked back from the initial statement after some good ol' @Cowbee@hexbear.net medicine
Nope. I didn't walk back. Just explained more clearly. I still stand by it "Anarchy is not (implied "just" or "primarily") about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves"
Often times when writing I use statements that could be read as absolutist in a relative sense and trust the context to carry it. I just hope all of the explaining I've done in this thread means that people will understand what I meant.
If you don't mind telling me, what anarchist authors or thinkers have you inspired your ideas on, that you've actually read?
But mostly I use the forgetting filter. My thoughts are a combination of countless little experiences from media, text and IRL that coalesce into my beliefs by forgetting the things that don't speak to me. This makes it a patchwork of half-remembered and incomplete ideas and that makes me rather useless at explaining them (which probably explains this entire thread), but I like it because it guarantees I keep moving forward, currently I'm focused a lot on pluralism and that's probably the fault of "all cocoons are temporary" being the last anarchist text that really spoke to me, but also part of Andrewisms videos discussing polity and free association.