Ask an Anarchist

[ParkCungHee]

The argument being made is that it's more effective because it's a genuine creation of the will of the people, not because of any special competence.

Well yes, "reliant to a greater or lesser degree on forceful repression." The economical use of force is pretty essential to managing a state effectively. But obviously even Ethnostates can't function without repression, otherwise they wouldn't be states.

What exactly is praxis? I've heard the term, but it's been a long time, and I'm not sure if I ever really understood

It means putting theory into practice, Lohr, though I gather you weren't asking me either.

Actually an interesting (by which I mean pedantic) point is that unlike most Anarchists I don't associate the 'theory' and 'praxis' destinction with the Young Hegelians, but with theological terms. And in theological terms, orthodox theory (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxis) are separate but mutually interrelated. It is entirely possible to have unorthodox beliefs but still take part in Orthopraxy. And, in this case, Orthopraxy can help guard and protect you, leading you back towards orthodoxy.

This seems like a minor quibble, but it's an important one from my perspective, because thinking the causal effect moves strictly from theory to practice supports the whole mentality of violence and repression: The search is for the correct theory, and then to implement it on someone. If you get the desired effect, your theory was accurate. If you don't, your theory was incorrect, and you need to get another one. We've never lacked for theories to implement on each other, and are developing more of them at a faster and faster pace every day.

But what if there wasn't a one way relationship between your beliefs and your actions, and the world? What if, instead of being an observer of the world, taking in data and putting out outputs, you're a part of the world, actually incarnate, and therefor what you do in the world is what matters most to what you are?

Gee, whatever you do, don't google ww2, you will most certainly be triggered by all the political violence against fascists.

This is a very strange and funny argument I see quite a bit, because it's basically an admission that WW2 was fought with no particular moral legitimacy. Sure, it posits that certain acts of violence should have particular moral legitimacy in themselves, but it basically couches itself in the whole logic of treaties and border violations, and the legal and repressive mechanisms used to conduct the war was a load of moral fabrication, since these same mechanisms declared the war over.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well yes, "reliant to a greater or lesser degree on forceful repression." The economical use of force is pretty essential to managing a state effectively. But obviously even Ethnostates can't function without repression, otherwise they wouldn't be states.

But you wouldn't be willing to accept that ethnostates are perhaps less immoral than other kinds?

 

[Lexicus]

But you wouldn't be willing to accept that ethnostates are perhaps less immoral than other kinds?

Ethnostates are far more immoral than other kinds.

because thinking the causal effect moves strictly from theory to practice

That certainly is not what I think. It's a two-way street there.

This is a very strange and funny argument I see quite a bit, because it's basically an admission that WW2 was fought with no particular moral legitimacy.

WW2 wasn't fought with any particular moral legitimacy. It was fought in the imperial interests of the Allied powers. It led to a morally superior outcome than if the Axis had won, certainly, but not due to some inherent moral superiority on the part of the Allies.

 

[Mouthwash]

Ethnostates are far more immoral than other kinds.

You aren't approved to answer questions on this thread, nor did I ask you in particular, nor is there any kind of argument or commentary in your post that would be worth mentioning regardless. So maybe you could refrain from answering unless at least one of those conditionals apply?

 

[Lexicus]

So perhaps you could refrain from answering me unless any of those conditionals apply?

No

 

[ParkCungHee]

But you wouldn't be willing to accept that ethnostates are perhaps less immoral than other kinds?

Roughly speaking, perhaps, in some instances. But fundamentally, I don't believe states are moral actors, that states ultimately come in more or less ethical forms, because States aren't real. There are always simply people conducting the violence and repression, and that violence and repression is always immoral.

WW2 wasn't fought with any particular moral legitimacy. It was fought in the imperial interests of the Allied powers. It led to a morally superior outcome than if the Axis had won, certainly, but not due to some inherent moral superiority on the part of the Allies.

I didn't say anything about the moral superiority of the allies, but that the Allies had any particular moral authority to prosecute the war. Most people hold to at least some distinction between serving in the armed forces, and personally loading up a plane with firebombs and dropping them on a German City. A distinction between legal and personal violence.

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't say anything about the moral superiority of the allies, but that the Allies had any particular moral authority to prosecute the war. Most people hold to at least some distinction between serving in the armed forces, and personally loading up a plane with firebombs and dropping them on a German City. A distinction between legal and personal violence.

I don't understand your point then.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The logic of the state is that it is the arbiter of legitimate violence. That soldiers are not murderers, or mass murderers, when they kill in combat because their actions are entirely distinct from those of someone who ordinarily picks up a gun and starts shooting people because of Reasons. And of course, in peacetime that there's a distinction between the behavior of cops, and the behavior of criminals.

I find it interesting, and deeply Zizekian how quickly many people will drop this pretense as soon as they need to, with no mental effort (while decoupling people from the moral logic of the state is normally difficult, for myself included). It's an interesting case of "I do not believe, but, I obey anyway."

 

[Lexicus]

So you're suggesting that my analogy between ww2 and punching Nazis eschews the logic of the state in this sense?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Precisely. I can't speak for your views on the state, but it's an analogy I've seen quite a bit in these last few months, usually from your garden variety soc dem.

 

[Takhisis]

What would the ‘garden variety soc dem’ be? I've generally been classified as a moderate/social democrat on CFC historically.

 

[Lexicus]

Precisely. I can't speak for your views on the state, but it's an analogy I've seen quite a bit in these last few months, usually from your garden variety soc dem.

I occupy a weird space where I'm more anti-authoritarian than most, but I don't believe the state can actually be abolished so anarchists don't accept me as one of their own.

 

[caketastydelish]

two questions:

1) How can this be realistic without the supply/demand benefits of capitalism? That is to say, there would probably be too many people who become poets, musicians, painters, etc. Doctors, engineers, nurses, mechanics are needed but people wouldn't do it because there would be no incentive to do it.

2) the only exception to 1) I can think of would be the Linux operating systems. That is to say, they are made by volunteers who do it for free.

The problem is, if there is only 1 exception I can find, there isn't much to work with to see how this would be realistic, is there?

 

[Kyriakos]

I keep misreading the thread's title as having the term 'antichrist'

 

[civver_764]

2) the only exception to 1) I can think of would be the Linux operating systems. That is to say, they are made by volunteers who do it for free.

That's not true. Most (like >90% iirc) are employed by companies like Intel to contribute to Linux.

 

[caketastydelish]

Are they getting paid to make it though? I didn't say they don't have careers.

 

[civver_764]

Yeah like their job is literally to be a Linux kernel developer. There's good money in that.

 

[Takhisis]

I keep misreading the thread's title as having the term 'antichrist'

In the UK.

 

[Ferocitus]

Why do you think Kropotkin managed to escape the various purges after the
Russian Revolution?
His prominence as a scientist?

 

[Ferocitus]

two questions:

1) How can this be realistic without the supply/demand benefits of capitalism? That is to say, there would probably be too many people who become poets, musicians, painters, etc. Doctors, engineers, nurses, mechanics are needed but people wouldn't do it because there would be no incentive to do it.

1. It's not realistic, if you want exactly the same state of affairs to continue.
2. Not everyone is motivated by the same incentives now, and nobody knows
what will motivate people in the future, especially post-revolution/collapse or
other seismic political shift.

EDIT: Apologies, I butted into this thread without realizing it isn't the usual "free-for-all".