All would say the same thing there. Look at the auth right we have today and the rhetoric of ‘the decadent decay of society and the need to rebuild traditional structures…’
So I went looking for how you might define the term outside of a pre-ordained order of society and found it somewhat comical that the M/W dictionary’s first example came from the playbook of the poster child for fascism…
This chilling prefiguration of Hitler’s Final Solution is unmistakable, and Heidegger never explained, let alone apologized for, such horrendous statements. —Gregory Fried, Foreign Affairs, 17 Oct. 2014
They can say the same, but who’s structures would you rather be a part of, given the choice? Horizontally-organized ones that function cooperatively, or the same crap you’ve got right now?
All we gotta do is keep showing people that better ways exist and work.
I don’t argue with the notion that virtually anything is better than we have now. I’d probably fall somewhere leftish but pretty neutral in the auth/lib scale. Basically to say having central authority enough to get things like big science, public infra, and foundational enforcement to the extent of ensuring people play by the agreed rules, but not the elite group dictation of them we have now. The idea of the self moderating and communal policing commune sounds nice, but unrealistic if you have anyone not following that path in or near the society.
I think there are plenty of people of all political ideologies who don’t fall into this intellectual trap. But I took this as criticism of a very real breed of political slacktivist who thinks that their preferred society is so natural or inevitable that it will just happen automatically whenever the current rulers fuck up badly enough.
But this is just fairy tale thinking. New societal structures are built from the bottom up and only replace the existing ones when a state of incredible weakness for one structure coexists with a state of strength for the new structure.
So I kind of agree but there are definitely lib-left people who engage in this type of thinking. It seems like insurrectionary anarchists largely fit in that category, but someone who knows more about their ideology can correct me if I got it wrong.
Ah gotcha well if you are genuinely building new structures then you are not the type I’m talking about, so it’s possible my above statement was a mischaracterization. I’ve just run into some people whose plan for replacing the state/capitalism is basically:
Set fire to shit
???
Profit Anarchist utopia
And I just don’t think that has any chance of working whatsoever.
a very real breed of political slacktivist who thinks that their preferred society is so natural or inevitable that it will just happen automatically whenever the current rulers fuck up badly enough.
Anarchism means “no rulers” not “no rules”. Smaller communities tend to organize cooperatively by nature, but we have to consciously organize so seizure of power is preventable.
The difference is, in the bottom left we’ve been aware the Empire is receding and are already creating new structures in the cracks left behind
The other three quadrants are just doing the same old shit
All would say the same thing there. Look at the auth right we have today and the rhetoric of ‘the decadent decay of society and the need to rebuild traditional structures…’
None of the other three have the concept of prefiguration
So I went looking for how you might define the term outside of a pre-ordained order of society and found it somewhat comical that the M/W dictionary’s first example came from the playbook of the poster child for fascism…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prefiguration
That’s doesn’t seem to be the same concept as the anarchist political praxis
They can say the same, but who’s structures would you rather be a part of, given the choice? Horizontally-organized ones that function cooperatively, or the same crap you’ve got right now?
All we gotta do is keep showing people that better ways exist and work.
A lot of people actually like authoritarianism. These people are known as morons.
I don’t argue with the notion that virtually anything is better than we have now. I’d probably fall somewhere leftish but pretty neutral in the auth/lib scale. Basically to say having central authority enough to get things like big science, public infra, and foundational enforcement to the extent of ensuring people play by the agreed rules, but not the elite group dictation of them we have now. The idea of the self moderating and communal policing commune sounds nice, but unrealistic if you have anyone not following that path in or near the society.
I think there are plenty of people of all political ideologies who don’t fall into this intellectual trap. But I took this as criticism of a very real breed of political slacktivist who thinks that their preferred society is so natural or inevitable that it will just happen automatically whenever the current rulers fuck up badly enough.
But this is just fairy tale thinking. New societal structures are built from the bottom up and only replace the existing ones when a state of incredible weakness for one structure coexists with a state of strength for the new structure.
So I kind of agree but there are definitely lib-left people who engage in this type of thinking. It seems like insurrectionary anarchists largely fit in that category, but someone who knows more about their ideology can correct me if I got it wrong.
I consider myself one ;) post-left anarchism in general
We’re not waiting around for a revolution, we’re of a mind to DIY where we can. At least, that’s the idea. Individual actions may vary.
Ah gotcha well if you are genuinely building new structures then you are not the type I’m talking about, so it’s possible my above statement was a mischaracterization. I’ve just run into some people whose plan for replacing the state/capitalism is basically:
Set fire to shit
???
ProfitAnarchist utopiaAnd I just don’t think that has any chance of working whatsoever.
Excellent description.
The bottom left will also at least get anarchy briefly after any collapse.
Well, an opportunity for it.
Anarchism means “no rulers” not “no rules”. Smaller communities tend to organize cooperatively by nature, but we have to consciously organize so seizure of power is preventable.
And if the government collapsed, there would be a brief period where there are no recognized rulers. 🤦♂️
Didn’t the collective Right build Project 2025? What exactly did the LibLeft build?