Forums of the Libertarian Left

[manbear2pig]

It degenerated into chaos and mayhem.

Ha, ha, I know, but seriously, what the hell? Does anybody know more about this? It seems to me (they also recently attacked Food Not Bombs [!]) that APOC has a disturbing tendency toward judging people by race or skin color -- exactly the opposite of what anarchism should be about. Not that I think anyone here would disagree (this has been a common theme of late) -- but it did seem like a depressingly counterproductive incident based on what I read (although most of the comments I've read on AnarchistNews were critical of this action). Is it possible the Man (so to speak) is trying to fuck with the anarchist movement? I guess at least that means we're considered a threat now...

[ctmummey]

lol wtf etc

did you read the comments?

"I don't know what's more embarrassing... that this 8 person Philly APOC guilt-trip was actually staged or that 100+ "anarchists" obliged themselves to be guilt tripped out of a space. APOC and the Crimethinc are two sides of the same identity politics coin. Crimethinc gets the "allies" it deserves and APOC gets the fights it picks and can predictably reap the white-guilt it sows."

never heard of APOC myself, but i dont run in any circles.

[ctmummey]

i liked the food not bombs essay because i value brevity in bat shit crazy rants.

[manbear2pig]

lol yeah - I guess I now have a morbid curiosity as to what they would say about the ALL. ( )

[neverfox]

Would anyone care to give the executive summary of this because right now I'm at "TLDR"?

[RoyceChristian]

Would anyone care to give the executive summary of this because right now I'm at "TLDR"?

Basically, 8 people holding nationalist and secessionist attitudes sought to disrupt a gathering by Crimethinc on the basis that the gathering brought together Anarchists from "out-of-town" which would in turn gentrify the neighbourhood. The 8 people involved were from "out-of-town" themselves and attacked the gathering of 100 Anarchists yelling all kinds of hurtful things and their possessions, claiming that they were acting from a non-existent Pittsburgh APOC group. More or less totally described with the phrase, 'Get the fuck out of our neighbourhood because you're white.'




Seriously, I think Chuck from infoshop is entirely right. People need to get out of that bubble and hang out with people who are apolitical every now and then. Seriously. The whole tale is insane -- 100 people allowing themselves to be pushed around by 8 others screaming rabid insults and then, later, hating themselves for being white? It could be just that I'm a foreigner and I don't understand, but it just sounds totally fucking absurd.

[Superdog]

I'm all for killing whitey, but that seems completely loony.

[Vichy]

that APOC has a disturbing tendency toward judging people by race or skin color -- exactly the opposite of what anarchism should be about.

Lol.

[manbear2pig]

that APOC has a disturbing tendency toward judging people by race or skin color -- exactly the opposite of what anarchism should be about.


Lol.

I guess that must have gone right over my head.

[Vichy]

I guess that must have gone right over my head.

Just laughing at the circular process of saying an ideology should be something or other. Very theological.

[manbear2pig]

Very theological.

Right, unlike Austrian economics.

[Vichy]

Very theological.

Right, unlike Austrian economics.

Depends on which ones you're dealing with.

[neverfox]

I guess that must have gone right over my head.

Just laughing at the circular process of saying an ideology should be something or other. Very theological.

Meaning that concepts should have no meaning? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you here.

[ctmummey]

what are ideologies BUT something to fight over hmmmm

[Vichy]

Meaning that concepts should have no meaning? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you here.

The point being that an ideology is a 'should', saying a given ideology 'should' be something in particular is circular. That being said, there is no conceptual content to 'anarchism' any more than liberalism, it means what any given person attracted to the word wants it to mean, the same way that 'god' does. Anarchy is either hollow or impossible, take your pick.

[neverfox]

The point being that an ideology is a 'should', saying a given ideology 'should' be something in particular is circular. That being said, there is no conceptual content to 'anarchism' any more than liberalism, it means what any given person attracted to the word wants it to mean, the same way that 'god' does. Anarchy is either hollow or impossible, take your pick.

I don't think words like 'god' can just mean anything. The presence of someone saying that 'god' means 'beet root' doesn't negate the fact that the word generally conveys something very different to competent users of the language even if the consensus is something very general and sketchy; but it certainly isn't anything. The same with anarchism. I think that the concept has certain constraints given the history of the word and its usage in the language (as a political philosophy). There are certain coherentist qualifications and a bit of indeterminacy that creates debate but again it can't mean just anything unless we want to just reduce the entire language to just strings of random sounds. Besides I think the original comment was said from the perspective of what is generally given as reasons for endorsing anarchism also being reasons to endorse other considerations, so it was appropriately relative to a given conceptual content.

[Vichy]

The problems I would state are:
1) Heirarchy is subjective.
2) Coercion is subjective.

[Forty_Ounce]

Anarchy is either hollow or impossible, take your pick.

And the state is neither?

[Vichy]

And the state is neither?

The notion of sovereignty is nonsensical, but there is at least some coherent meaning to a nation-state which is manifest in reality. People actually do believe in the authority of the State, and the State-organizations actually do enforce laws. The 'non-coercive' society is, however, pure nonsense, or entirely subjective, which amounts to the same thing.

Also, state/anarchy is a false dichotomy.

[Forty_Ounce]

And the state is neither?

The notion of sovereignty is nonsensical, but there is at least some coherent meaning to a nation-state which is manifest in reality. People actually do believe in the authority of the State, and the State-organizations actually do enforce laws. The 'non-coercive' society is, however, pure nonsense, or entirely subjective, which amounts to the same thing.

So when it comes to anarchy and the state, you judge them by a "heads I win, tails you lose" system.

Also, state/anarchy is a false dichotomy.

So whats the third option? Or are you saying that they just arent comparable in the first place?

[Vichy]

So whats the third option? Or are you saying that they just arent comparable in the first place?

The 'third' option is 99% of all organizations in human history, from the Roman Empire to Chiefless-Tribes to Feudalism to Panarchism.

[Forty_Ounce]

So whats the third option? Or are you saying that they just arent comparable in the first place?

The 'third' option is 99% of all organizations in human history, from the Roman Empire to Chiefless-Tribes to Feudalism to Panarchism.

And these 99% things you mention are somehow neither statist or anarchic?

[Vichy]

They're polycentric, overlapping and non-sovereign regions of varied autonomy and authority. They are certainly not 'anarchistic' (nothing is), and they are certainly not 'states', if you have a sense of the legal and ideological nature of the modern state. The modern state is a civil, territorial and sovereign bureaucracy. Such states as we see after the Republican revolutions (Crowell to Napoleon) quite simply did not exist before that. They are a distinct form of political organization, both in concept and practice. They are inherently nationalistic and totalitarian.

[manbear2pig]

The point being that an ideology is a 'should', saying a given ideology 'should' be something in particular is circular. That being said, there is no conceptual content to 'anarchism' any more than liberalism, it means what any given person attracted to the word wants it to mean, the same way that 'god' does. Anarchy is either hollow or impossible, take your pick.

No, saying an ideology is a should is obviously an opinion, since there is by definition no way it could be anything else. And the point is to get people to agree with your opinion, so it will be implemented. Call it what you want. You're not saying anything that isn't already obvious. Your statements are subject to the exact same "critique", so you end up right back where you started if you're trying to use it for or against something. Just because we live in a cold dead world with no intrinsic meaning (oh, woeisme!) doesn't mean we can't discuss how we would like to live and what social structures we think would best enable us to be happy, etc. And unless you have no preference as to whether to be killed or left alone, I suspect you probably also have opinions that would involve the dreaded word "should". It is not clear to me how "deconstructing" anarchism serves to work against it or suggest anything else. There's no objection definition of coercion? Oh wowsers! I don't seem to recall anyone saying there was, nor do I see why it would make a difference. Anarchy is only "hollow or impossible" if you are defining it as some mystical state of total nonaggression or whatever, which the leading anarchists have made quite a point of emphasizing it does NOT mean.

[Vichy]

Most anarchists I've met argue for the morality of anarchy on the basis of it's non-aggressive or non-authoritarian status. A status which is nonsense. Beyond that, 'Propertarianism' is a much better word for what American libertarians mean than 'anarchism'.