Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Memes All the Way Down
2016-07-17 21:32:50 Post No. 8290361
[Report]
Image search:
[Google]
Memes All the Way Down
Anonymous
2016-07-17 21:32:50
Post No. 8290361
[Report]
Just a few general questions on anarchy and revolution from a faglord here
I guess technically I should address /pol/ but let's be honest I don't want to lose more brain cells than I already have.
How is anarchy (or the revolutionary ideals that inevitably lead up to a state of anarchy) different than other ideology? I shack up with the Solzhenitsyn critique that ideology has skullfucked the modern polis into being a shit storm of "means justifies the ends" oppression. How can anarchy not end up like this? My general thoughts are the truistic claim that mostly cults of personality that spring up around revolutionary figures are to blame for skewing revolutionary regimes into some autocratic or oligarchic form of government. But betting on that being the only problem with
"the revolution" is a thick bet.
Also, my general train of thought with anarchy is along the lines that it will remove power from the hands of the oppressor, eliminate private property which allows for a definite capital power over another, and democratize fulfillment of capabilities as things would be in an idealized "state of nature," i.e., a state without the foreign imposition of law or the demand of capital productivity. So, yay, sounds intuitively good. But who's to say that in this state free of the oppressive powers (the powers that do, in fact, aim for and secure peace in some semblance, following Hardt's logic) that some other form of oppression will arise. And, in fact, this might be even scarier or more oppressive because it's not concentrated oppression as is implied in "the law" (where you could just lash out at the judicial system or whatever). tl;dr, Who's to say that in an anarchic state, men won't tend toward forming militias to reimpose private property with an even more brutal force? My initial reaction is to say that these militias would just kill each other out, and people would quickly realize that killing or attempting to monopolize property is ultimately more harmful for all parties involved than good. But, again, that's an idealistic bet.
Keep in mind that all of the evils these questions could yield are to be compared to the evils produced by an oligarchic control of capitalism. That's what's really doing me for a woozy because fuck if I know which is more evil: hoping that everyone will cooperate while armed factions run amok in the streets for a (again, hopefully,) brief period of time; or, knowing that a vast majority of individuals will never have the opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of their capabilities because the powers that be have their testicles in a vice grip with bills to pay, jobs to work, ends to meet, etc.
P.S. Can we please not let this descend into a Hobbes vs. Rousseau argument? Both didn't know jack shit about a true "state of nature" seeing as how all of their evidence was derived from bullshit, half-assed anthropology or mere speculation.
