Anarchism

TANKIES GO HOME!

@anarchism

@anarchism

TANKIES GO HOME!

@anarchism #TANKIES GO HOME!

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/507845

to anyone who’s set up or been a part of community initiatives to fix the world, how did you get started? how’s it going now?

On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the first anti-authoritarian international, international meetings are being prepared in the Swiss Jura mountains. They will take place from July 19 to 23, 2023 - with an extension of a few days to allow time and space for spontaneous meetings. We are making this appeal to clarify the role of these meetings, that is to say our concrete motivations, as well as the way we wish to organize them.

In a world that seems to be increasingly neutralizing radical protest - between repression, recuperation and control - it seems necessary to meet physically, as anarchists. In order to reflect collectively on the issues that matter to us, and in particular on the political and social evolutions of the last few years, and to continue to deepen the critiques that emancipate us. In order to learn more about the concrete struggles that are taking place everywhere, told by those who lead them. To form new hopes for the future. To build strong links between different anti-authoritarian groups and individuals, to strengthen solidarity between struggles across borders. And to make new people want to join them.

I generally use "anarchist" to describe my political philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm using it correctly, but I'm not certain. I haven't had much contact with other "anarchists", just a bit of exposure through history and such.

First off, to me, "anarchism" doesn't mean "no government". Rather it means "no intrinsic authority". What I see among historical anarchists is an opposition to practices that, frankly, aren't all that often practiced any more, in the political realm. I'm referring to rule by bloodline and such, nobility and royalty. I get the impression the early anarchists wanted to do away with royal governance, in favor of a federation of voluntary governments instituted at the local level. Which is to say, they believed in government; they just wanted to do away with imposed external authority.

But I do see our current economic relations as having a great deal of externally imposed authority in it... though going into my beliefs about why, and what could be done about it, would be beyond the scope of this essay.

To me, anarchism means the following:

1. Favoring no unnecessary relationships of authority.

2. Where authority is necessary, it should be granted by those over whom the authority is exercised, directly and individually, to the greatest extent practicable. So, for example, if we have an economic system that leaves both employers and employees with the same level of market power (we do not, but if we did), the employer-employee relationship would qualify, since it commences by choice of both parties, and can end by the choice of either party.

3. Where this is impracticable, the authority in question should always be temporary, with a clearly delineated end. For example, the parent-child relationship is necessarily one of authority, since children lack the faculties to make all the decisions one needs to make. But this relationship should be premised on preparing the child to survive outside this relationship, and have a clear end point (the point of their majority). And I mainly include this but just for the parent-child relationship; I can't think of any others.

All this being said, I know there are those for whom Anarchism means "no government", usually detractors who don't actually understand the philosophy... or so I assume. Do I assume incorrectly? Is my use of the term wildly incorrect? I really don't know.

What is said by great employers of labor against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.

~ Oscar Wilde

Here's a list of anarchist networks on Lemmy

• [email protected]

• [email protected]

• [email protected]

• [email protected]

How would you react to the idea that some AI entity may wish to be declared as something more, can it be declared something more at all, and where does the border lie?

Was rewatching GitS and reading through some zines and now i have a question im having trouble to form

I'm currently stewing on the idea of creating /c/commoning but in the meantime I'm choosing to post this here. Not directly anarchist but I do feel like understanding how ancient effective management of commons is and that re-commoning is something that should be emphasized in anarchist praxis

We are poised between an old world that no longer works and a new one struggling to be born. Surrounded by centralized hierarchies on the one hand and predatory markets on the other, people around the world are searching for alternatives. The Wealth of the Commons explains how millions of commoners have organized to defend their forests and fisheries, reinvent local food systems, organize productive online communities, reclaim public spaces, improve environmental stewardship and re-imagine the very meaning of “progress” and governance. In short: how they’ve built their commons.

In 73 timely essays by a remarkable international roster of activists, academics and project leaders, this book chronicles ongoing struggles against the private commoditization of shared resources – often known as “market enclosures” – while documenting the immense generative power of the commons. The Wealth of the Commons is about history, political change, public policy and cultural transformation on a global scale – but most of all, it’s about commoners taking charge of their lives and their endangered resources. It’s about common people doing uncommon things.

NOTE: while there are links to buy the book on that site, I want to emphasize that the entire thing is available to read on the site under the Contents tab; as well as the link to the free epub version for download

Overview: The article discusses the interplay between decentralized and centralized aspects of governance in the context of decentralized self- governance and shares learnings from Sociocracy For All’s (SoFA) experience, including that decentralization is an active process that requires preparation, budget, strategy, and information can act as centralizing forces, and decentralization requires different ways of thinking about responsibility and leadership. SoFA is a young membership organization founded in 2016 promoting sociocracy, a governance system with consent-based decision-making in small groups, in nonprofits and other organizations.

What are the best zines for introducing beginners and libs. I have a couple of places I want to start distributing zines but I think my audience needs some real basic concepts like cops aren't your friends, profit isn't really what motivates most people, direct action can be effective. I like Bullshit Jobs and To Change Everything, but I need some more variety.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/415628

Check it, Felipe Corrêa has a new article looking at the various debates in the anarchist tradition!

I may not be particularly inclined toward religion or spirituality, but I did really find this essay interesting and attractive.

Shawn P. Wilbur has two excellent articles that, when put together, form the seed for me of these fascinating ideas:

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/contrun/the-anatomy-of-the-encounter/

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/contrun/the-anarchic-encounter-economic-andor-erotic/

Here's my own take on the idea: https://vagabondblog.xyz/2022/07/10/anarchic-encounter.html

In the current moment of rising fascism I find this piece particularly powerful. Novatore is one of my favorite anarchist writers; even though I may not agree with everything he says I think he has a lot of unique insights and certainly writes beautifully.

. . .

The Relations of Production

In the Soviet Union, property was owned juridically through the State. This is often taken as an open and shut case as to why the relations of production within Soviet enterprises can not be compared to that of a typical capitalist country. Looking to Marx, however, we find that he repeatedly emphasises the need to understand capitalism as a set of social relations, and that 'capitalists' are simply the personification of capital, or the dynamics of capitalist production.

In our own developed capitalist countries we frequently encounter bosses and managers who do not literally ‘own’ their means of production. They are, nevertheless, still clearly members of the capitalist ruling class. In Marx’s terms, these are 'functional capitalists', or "functionaries of capital"; a concept best outlined in Volume III of Capital. Marx distinguishes the so-called ‘work’ of supervising the labour process – of extracting surplus value – as fundamentally different to the labour of the working class, which produces surplus value. This is to say that, with the owner of capital “shifted outside the actual process of exploitation”, the income of the functional capitalist only appears as the “wages of management”, or administration. Despite their structural position within the relations of production, the functionary of capital – the supervisor and legal director of the labour process – comes to believe,

that his profit of enterprise - very far from forming any antithesis with wage-labour and being only the unpaid labour of others - is rather itself a wage, 'wages of superintendence of labour ', a higher wage than that of the ordinary wage-labourer, (1) because it is complex labour, and (2) because he himself pays the wages. That his function as a capitalist consists in producing surplus value, i.e. unpaid labour, and in the most economical conditions at that, is completely forgotten…[7]

And so it is with the Soviet enterprise manager, or the government official. For them, the ‘owner’ of the means of production is the State – a neat legal fiction which ‘shifts the owner of capital ‘outside’ the actual process of exploitation’; in this case into the realm of legal abstraction.

The social relations of control – and the ends to which control of production were directed – became obscured in the Soviet system. Like Marx, however, we should look past this obfuscation, and consider these individuals as personifications. In the Soviet Union, party bureaucrats and enterprise managers were functionaries of an underlying class system, wherein the property relations were that of a dispossessed class compelled to work under, and for, a de facto possessing class.

. . .

Looking for collaborators to create a new instance of Lemmy (current technology plan, subject to change). Among other things, this instance will differ from existing ones by having a self-governing structure. Check out the rough draft linked below to learn about our vision for this community. No specific skills needed, but please read through the concept outline before getting in touch via DM or comments. Join us in creating a unique and innovative platform. Currently we have one other person helping and another 2 who may be interested. Would love if you could add to that list :)

This happened in the US. My friend went was picked to be in a pool of potential jurors in a civil case where the landlord was suing the tenants. When they asked the pool for anyone to speak out if they had any potential reason to think they may be biased in the case, my friend stood up and said something close to this:

I will 100% side with the tenants. If you told me that the landlord had irrefutable evidence that the tenants placed bombs on the landlords car IRA-style, then I would want to know what the landlord did to make the tenants do that.

The "IRA-style bombs" and "I would want to know what the landlord did to make them tenants do that" parts were definitely stated as such. He said those words. My friend was promptly removed and did not become a juror, but he became a legend in my eyes. I'm really proud of him.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.fmhy.ml/post/12769

extra topical for these recent days!