20 Dec
2018
20 Dec
'18
2:16 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/17/18 10:28 PM, jim bell wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 1:48:02 PM PST, furrier > <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote: > > >> These guys are a joke, trying to capitilize on anarchy to push >> forward their own agentas. I am disgusted. > > I understand what you are saying. Despite the fact that I have > called myself an anarchist (libertarian-anarchist) since 1995, I > have noticed with dismay that a lot of people who call themselves > "anarchists" (and a lot of people who are called "anarchists") are > actually just big-government-loving socialists, embarrassed at the > failures of socialism. For a comment that's better than I'd take > the time to write, see: > https://attackthesystem.com/2017/12/19/free-association-is-not-fascism - -how-many-times-does-it-have-to-be-said/ > Jim Bell > > A partial quote by Keith Preston, which also quotes others > inside:[partial quote begins] > > Another claim is that anarchist communities and associations must > be “inclusive.” Of course, anyone who has spen time around the > general anarchist milieu knows how exclusionary anarchists actually > are. I generally like to cite this comment made by a former an-com > some years ago as an illustration: > > > I used to be an anarcho-communist. Actually, I started out as > someone who was vaguely sympathetic to mainstream libertarianism > but could never fully embrace it due to the perceived economic > implications. I eventually drifted to social anarchism thanks to > someone who’s name I won’t mention, because it’s too embarrassing. > > After hanging around them for a while I realized that, for all > their pretenses, most of them were really just state-socialists who > wanted to abolish the State by making it smaller and calling it > something else. After about a year of hanging around Libcom and the > livejournal anarchist community, I encountered people who, under > the aegis of “community self-management”, supported > > - smoking and alcohol bans - bans on currently illicit drugs - bans > on caffeinated substances (all drugs are really just preventing you > from dealing with problems, you see) - censorship of pornography > (on feminist grounds) - sexual practices like BDSM (same grounds, > no matter the gender of the participants or who was in what role) - > bans on prostitution (same grounds) - bans on religion or public > religious expression (this included atheist religions like > Buddhism, which were the same thing because they were > “irrational”) - bans on advertisement (which in this context meant > any free speech with a commercial twist) - bans on eating meat - > gun control (except for members of the official community-approved > militia, which is in no way the same thing as a local police > department) - mandatory work assignments (ie slavery) - the blatant > statement, in these exact words, that “Anarchism is not > individualist” on no less than twelve separate occasions over the > course of seven months. Not everybody in those communities actively > agreed with them, but nobody got up and seriously disputed it. - > that if you don’t like any of these rules, you’re not free to just > quit the community, draw a line around your house and choose not to > obey while forfeiting any benefits. No, as long as you’re in what > they say are the the boundaries (borders?) of “the community”, > you’re bound to follow the rules, otherwise you have to move > someplace else (“love it or leave it”, as the conservative mantra > goes). You’d think for a moment that this conflicts with An-comm > property conceptions because they’re effectively exercising power > over land that they do not occupy, implying that they own it and > making “the community” into One Big Landlord a la Hoppean feudalism > > > So I decided that we really didn’t want the same things, and that > what they wanted was really some kind of Maoist concentration > commune where we all sit in a circle and publicly harass the people > who aren’t conforming hard enough. No thanks, comrade. > > > Of course, it is also true that these “anti-fascist” folks really > don’t care about “exclusion,” anyway. As I mentioned, many of them > are Communists, state-socialists, and social democrats, and even > the anarchist contingent among them seems to be little more than > dupes and useful idiots. What they are really concerned about is > “exclusion” on politically incorrect grounds, while insisting on > retaining the right to “exclude” whomever or whatever they want for > themselves. Therefore, an Anarcho-Marxist Politically Correct > Commune=Good, Conservative Religious White Folks Enclave=Horrible, > and People of Color Racial Separatist Community=Understandable > Because History Except That Ikcy Homophobia Part. > > However, much of this “debate” is for naught. While it is certainly > true that some people might prefer to live in ethnically, racially, > religiously, politically, sexually, etc. exclusionary communities > given the freedom of choice to do so, the meta-politics of a > civilization organized on the principle of free association (i.e. > anarchism) would come much closer to resembling the Mr. Spockian > ideal of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” than, for > example, the Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, Orania, or Kiryas Joel. A > better model might be to review the endless array of culturally, > religiously, ethnically, professionally, academically, > occupationally, or politically themed organizations that are listed > in the Yellow Pages of any major city, or the list of organizations > found on the campus of a large university. No doubt the > “anti-fascists” regard themselves as heroic freedom fighters, and > as regular Sophie Scholls who deserve a pat on the back for doing > their part to prevent the next wave of genocides (all the while > including hammer and sicklers in their ranks). Fortunately, they > are as politically irrelevant as their neo-Nazi tribal enemies. > [end of very long partial quote by Keith Preston, quoting others as > well.] I believe that I agree wholeheartedly with the above > commentary. Jim Bell > > > > > > > > Keith Preston is not the best person to quote when discussing anarchism. Honestly i don't know ANY anarchists in my circle that support that awful list of authoritarian practices, though i have to say that there is a bit of truth in the accusation that the anarchist community can be exclusionary. - -- Marina -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJcGnz/AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRCdsMMAJDhCDjxQeEEec8co/rI9et5 695ZO9XBbTeRoNpqQJWENP+Dw0baAIdWohTSxvV3SHeJlwRj5/LVTJ/fODL6Gvj/ tHUyoQdfbcGzGPsCzCRfGSb75nJPryH2H8KBjEdkVxb+ky/VA0uz9ZJHCdirM8I+ lSM4DjdqLFJ+PHnEH8z+pmAnBOGPzUWbQHzMbA3SCAJeaQO2Q8nOrTyp7paxC24A oBORCMNuCfpstf9GCWlbdnkdYpkjCXTNhISkAe5U0yNpfdXHenw+17jbIWlebP7V ZwKDPoi9GNAu7U66S/MqSifjq1CicptDezcgBWBgDdicq9tjP62A94cuzZc0LQoj 53Kl9uLttnXznoq5UsRnlpkZDkf9SdK3x6/LuD3ie4eQi14fearIp7ySWZQlJ+Fw pqzbig1cBEYR3aS717ykNDvkc7Tjd5f061pPXsPddCEjb3Kchptmxsg/Eax86iYj F3iM8gAtDmJbsAX1hhC3Ao6KQ1bQ0b6/SbNhQa4Jzw== =iTh1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----