What is Postanarchism?

[@RAMULUS31]

Great back and forth. I've always believed Deleuze to be the ultimate anarchist

[@machinicassemblage]

but he was a marxist tho

[@terminalglimmer]

@@machinicassemblage So was Debord, and look where the anarchists took that.

[@richardbuckharris189]

"John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" ~ Emma Goldman

[@fetchpena9997]

So glad I found this.Thanks for posting.

[@aldenchan8324]

thanks for sharing this discussion y'all!! i just got into post-structuralism and this was a great way to get more into it :)

[@RevolutionandIdeology]

Thanks for listening!

[@alanhansmannkurtcobain8811]

Neat! Thanks for the education!

[@severinmillitia]

Thanks this is what i need

[@legitimatemedicine]

"You're alive, fix this!" I agree. I think post-structuralism is a useful tool, but post-structuralist *anarchism* is useless. Anarchism by its nature has a goal, a prescription, that society should maximize freedom by opposing hierarchy. I don't get how they can say there is no goal because goals are oppressive. But, I'm unread, maybe I missed the point

[@tomitiustritus6672]

I can only speak for myself, but anarchism without goal for me basically means that the way is the goal. That anarchism is a process, not a state of being. I think i've never seen it expressed more beautifully than in Ursula K. LeGuins The Dispossessed. Its not a theoretical book, but s social science fiction novel. Its protagonist grew up in an anarchist society and finds himself to be the anarchist for that anarchist society. I think LeGuin captures a lot of important nuances of anarchist philosophy, be it this one, or the reflection if collectivism and individualism isn't really a false dichotomy that needs to be dissolved/reconciled.

[@legitimatemedicine]

@@tomitiustritus6672 Since I made this comment, I have changed my position on post-structuralism now that I'm more educated

[@yanrichdeponcy3235]

Liberated for everyone

[@fafo867]

i wish we had another tiqqun but alas, looks like we gotta create it ourselves

[@adamaenosh6728]

It is a cop out, and it is deeply condescending, to suggest that intellectuals shouldn't make any 'prescriptions' to the oppressed. The oppressed are perfectly capable of noticing the ways in which theoretical prescriptions fall short of their experiences, and then making their own intellectual contributions taking these experiences into account, basing their activism on their amended version of the ideas they've read. What would be oppressive about intellectual prescriptions is if we assume that the state is structured according to them. This ideological structuring might serve as a productive definition of what is 'indirect', as opposed to 'direct democracy'. I would then take a kind of humanist position where the 'natural law' is the law of intellectual discourse itself, and be in favour of a direct democracy that is run by an educated public, thus dissolving the binary of the philosopher vs activist anyway.

[@aydenr5467]

This is an interesting dichotomy that I had not fully considered. I generally don't see academics (philosophers) and activists at odds with one another. Although perhaps that is me being naïve. One would hope that the goal of a philosopher is to expound upon thought, learn, adapt and change. Much like the activist, except that generally activism tends to produce action, not simply thought.

[@justinatwood8728]

I have to propose the idea that America is a democratic republic with communal socialist policies intended to support a structural anarchy. If “freedom” is our objective, how else do we achieve and maintain that?

[@justinatwood8728]

Also, why does this video only have 15 comments in 3 years?

[@elliottjames671]

Natural law doesnt assume anything it exist in nature you follow it or not. Human Nature is programmable.

[@aydenr5467]

If Natural Law exists in nature, and we are part of what nature is, then how would one NOT live according to natural law?

[@elliottjames671]

STUDY NATURAL LAW WITH MARK PASSIO.

[@kimcosmos]

game design is performative regulation whereby subjects create each other. Think kids arguing the rules before playing. Or Ostrom's local standards being the negotiation between selfishness and ideals. Think ideology meets the market in reality... Most game theory is market design praxis. Stop thinking of the private competitor and public ideal. Its the real life balance. Complete with stupid Nash equilibria, real politik, and anarchist (TM) power washing etc. Natural law is an example of market evolution. Instead of waiting for evolution we can experiment with models to find whats cheaply sustainable. We experience that as interactionism through out mirror neurons. Anarchist have ideals, what norms are cheaply enforcable? Giving everyone policing training like in Rojava? Time for anarchists to become scientists instead of idealogues

[@justinatwood8728]

A stateless society has the inherent requirement of no other opposing or “neighboring” states. It’s not a utopian ideal, but it is a fundamentally adolescent objective because without a well developed and protected global society it has little chance of surviving.

[@teohamacher2898]

lol, cope. you are suffering a case of capitalist realism my friend.

[@clannites0674]

This is a poor discussion on Anarchism, and the post-Anarchism critique, if accurately represented here, is a poor critique of classical Anarchism. At best, *at best* , it is a critique of the idealist parts of *social* Anarchism, something already done by a lot of classical individualist Anarchist theory has already prefigured a lot of these criticisms, if not with the same language. Neither of you understand the distinction between force, power, or authority well enough to comment on it.

[@RevolutionandIdeology]

" if accurately represented here." If you aren't familiar with the post-anarchist critique than you aren't qualified to have an opinion on what we've presented here. The individualist anarchist critiques of socialist anarchism are not the same at the post-structuralist critiques of classical anarchism. "Neither of you understand the distinction between force, power, or authority well enough to comment on it." This is not an extensive discussion of those concepts. Clearly, it's just a discussion of post-structural anarchism. That can be accomplished without detailing the nuances between the three.

[@Liliquan]

Hey, clannites, don’t be a reactionary mate.