• thewonder
    1.4k
    Though I have recently left the Anarchist movement in protest and become relatively a-political, as I wonder if the slogan, "the personal is political", shouldn't ring all too true, I have decided to conceptualize a new political philosophy. I have coined the term, "Meta-Anarchism", to describe a political philosophy that proceeds from but has also left Anarchism behind. I will give my reasons for doing so in the following paragraphs.

    A partial inspiration for doing so is that, like some Nihilists, I believe for an effective ethical global revolution to be impossible. In this text, Endnotes claims that that the military should choose not to fire upon a civilian populace and defect to them is the sine qua non of any effective revolution. I agree with this. What I should first like to ask is as to why it is that we should expect for the militaries of the world arbitrate the establishment of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes following a global revolution? As their doing so will necessitate the creation of ethical internment camps at best, I should also like to ask as to how this can be done ethically? As such a situation can just simply not be produced, what qualms I have with revolutionary praxis are just simply irrelevant.

    For a global spontaneous revolution to occur, everyone would have to decide to flood the streets of the cities and cultural centers of the world simultaneously. Such an extraordinary event can only occur within the speculative realm of Philosophy as thought experiments. Substantial changes to the world can be made within experimental communities, through various forms of protest, and in advance of as libertarian and egalitarian of a political community as possible, but what the advancement of such praxis is not is Anarchism. Anarchism is delimited by its advancement of a global revolution. It is not possible to remain effective within the Anarchist movement if you do not agree to partake within a revolutionary project.

    A reason that I cited for leaving the Anarchist movement was of its general proclivities towards "political violence". Actual Anarchist terrorists are extraordinarily rare, but those who, in theory, defend them are not. A coercive act of direct action is an act of terrorism. If you plant a bomb in a factory, even one that doesn't kill anyone, and use that act, one that could merely qualify as sabotage, as a threat, then, that is terrorism. You are making an attempt to force the hands of others by intimidating them. Clearly, an overtly coercive act of direct action, such as a political assassination, is an act of terrorism. Though I understand all too well as to how American discourse has become totally lacking in either complexity or nuance when it comes to just what is or is not "terrorism", it just simply is what political coercion is. All too many Anarchists will give all too many excuses in their rationalizations and justifications for such acts. As a Pacifist, I have found for the movement as a whole to be completely untenable. As anyone who undertakes a cursory analysis of the far-Left following a series of events in 1968 ought to discover what the ramifications of engaging in such praxis are, the detractors to it are right to describe such praxis as "adventurist terrorism".

    What I did not cite as a reason for leaving the Anarchist movement is what I have just recently realized, that it is impossible to create a fully participatory democracy. Though I do still advance the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes, what I have realized is that they will have to have delegates, and, so, now offer a syncretic participatory and representative democracy in opposition to the form of Liberal democracy that exists today. I also think that such an organization of a political community can only be achieved gradually. Experimental communities, nonviolent acts of direct action and protest, free expression, and the meaningful participation within the Liberal democratic project can all be utilized in bringing such a political community about. Though similar to the "diversity of tactics", as Malcom X's strategy precluded strict nonviolence, what I have proposed markedly differs. I am not making an attempt to co-opt his strategy; I have given one that I believe to be better in a decisive split from the Anarchist movement. I don't want to make a bid for control within it. I am leaving it behind.

    In no unclear or uncertain terms, Meta-Anarchism is a nonviolent gradualist political philosophy that advocates for the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes effectuated by a syncretic participatory and representative democracy through a diverse set of tactics. There are no required readings and it is open to all.
  • thewonder
    1.4k
    I should also note that I have merely posted to safeguard my position within a political foray that I would prefer to leave behind and that, should anyone want to take up this torch, they may have to go it alone, as I may just carry on with having become more or less a-political. If we don't see each other, give them all my best regards!
  • thewonder
    1.4k
    meta-
    /ˌmetə,ˌmetə/
    combining form
    prefix: meta-; prefix: met-
    1.
    denoting a change of position or condition.
    "metamorphosis"
    2.
    denoting position behind, after, or beyond.
    "metacarpus"
    3.
    denoting something of a higher or second-order kind.
    "metalanguage"

    As "post" was already taken, I had to settle for "meta". That is all.
  • god must be atheist
    3.5k
    why it is that we should expect for the militaries of the world arbitrate the establishment of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes following a global revolution?thewonder

    I considered this question seriously, and the best answer I have is that I don't know. I came up with several other answers, but I don't think they are better. In fact, if I am any decent judge of this sort of thing, they are worse.

    I should also note that I have merely posted to safeguard my position within a political foray that I would prefer to leave behind and that, should anyone want to take up this torch, they may have to go it alone, as I may just carry on with having become more or less a-political. If we don't see each other, give them all my best regards!thewonder

    This should have been the first paragraph of your opening post. I seriously gave thought to the issues raised in the first paragraph, not to only learn that you are not interested in answers to your own questions.

    This is not good.
  • T Clark
    7.1k
    In no unclear or uncertain terms, Meta-Anarchism is a nonviolent gradualist political philosophy that advocates for the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes effectuated by a syncretic participatory and representative democracy through a diverse set of tactics. There are no required readings and it is open to all.thewonder

    I believe Pol Pot wrote something similar after a night of drinking in a Paris cafe in the 1940s.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    It's there so that anyone who tries to put this into effect knows what they're getting into.


    I could have written several sentences, but I figured that I should just sum it all up in one. Meta-Anarchism is just a nonviolent gradualist approach to Anarchism that assumes for the Anarchist movement to be untenable. I've made a lot of explicit claims, but they do make sense.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    It seems to me that they'd just restore some form of Liberal democracy. Should the geo-political situation worsen to the point of revolution being necessary, more or less the only way in which it could happen, which the various ruling orders of the world take care not to let, the only thing that would happen, in the best of all possible worlds, is that a better Liberal democracy would be created. I'd like to see a better Liberal democracy too, but accelerationism, at best, is just kind of pointless.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Also, in my defense, Anarchists, hipsters, and a litany of nefarious clandestine parties have destroyed my life to such an extent that it just wouldn't be a good idea for me to lead a political movement.
  • thewonder
    1.4k
    So, gradualist nonviolent Anarchism is just sensible Anarcho-Pacifist praxis. I have still, as an Anarcho-Pacifist, left the movement to get my life and mind back together, but have decided to rescind having done so in protest. That's all that I wanted to explain.
  • RolandTyme
    23
    I'm sorry to hear you have been having a bad time. Just do whatever you can - that's all any of us do. After a head injury, I can't sustain prolonged debate on the internet and hairsplitting, for instance. I mean - I physically can't do it, I just get tired. So, without knowing where you're coming from - I get where you're coming from.
  • JACT
    8
    Hi,

    So, I would consider an anarchist meta-discussion to be of the kind of for instance looking at how a certain branch of anarchism would affect for instance political system x associated by political context y.

    Maybe that answer more is related to applied anarchism. Let me try again.

    Questions for instance regarding what grounds anarchism must surely be an meta-metaphysical discussion; given that the consitution of anarchism is a given. Now, as I see it, there is no actual unified view on anarchism, as there are many different branches.

    Come to think about it, I recently stumbled upon the definition that libertarianism and anarchism are put on a par. This must surely be a mistake. I have difficulties envisioning a solution that makes for instance an anarcho-communist and a libertarian share the same view on liberty, freedom, and so forth.

    However, the core of anarchism should also be a meta-discussion to have when all 'cards are on the table', that is when a unified view on anarchism has been achieved, if possible. The core should however be possible to extract some other way. Remember the etymology of 'anarchism'. According to this the definition must be considered very broad.

    For instance, taking into account an anarchistic conception of time should be one of the more difficult positions to defend, however, maybe such meta-discussions should be possible under the umbrella you are proposing.
  • hope
    216
    Anarchismthewonder

    Privatize everything and you have anarchism without chaos.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment