Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.


+4 votes
of course i mean in the context of anarchistic relations.

in the world of democrapitalism, trust is essentially reliant on legal (contracts) and political (elected representatives) institutions. and that trust, as well as the supposedly "earned" or assumed trust between individuals who know each other (eg, families), is breached frequently. in a world of individuals relating freely and without institutional constraints, how would you build trust with others that you don't already know? can anything other than time and first-hand experience serve that purpose?
by (13.4k points)
"can anything other than time and first-hand experience serve that purpose?"

absolutely not. I say this because I have trusted-in people who I knew for a long time, and they still find ways to violate it.

You really just have to trust yourself above:

-the intuition of others

-not always others, because they can sometimes show you some new perspectives and blind spots. Yet, you have to default back to yourself when something happens which warns you the paths ahead are dangerous.

-your thoughts

-fear is a default feeling which negates trust, don't "just do it" as nike and americanism tell you, but when i don't trust what i feel it sometimes helps to wait for a new assessment. This sometimes only takes a few seconds.

I can't fully answer your question funky :-) I can only hack at it.
you raise an important point: self-trust.

given the breadth and depth of indoctrination all (at least most) of us have been subjected to, how does one trust that their feelings/intuitions/fears are authentically their own and rooted in their individual experience/understanding/relations, and not coming from the false authority of some ideology or similar?

hack away!
i think that question (how do we trust ourselves) shows the purpose of the examined life (examined in whatever way one finds important/fulfilling). to determine our own values, and then measure our desires against them (and vice versa).

thanks, clicking on the terminal! X-D

You're getting to why i trust my feelings above everything else, whereas my thoughts tend to serve as a filter for when I'm feeling things very strongly. In the end I trust my feelings more than my thoughts, because they bypass the ultra-western control mechanisms of the words we use...i tend to get really sick of the conversations that anarchists have, because they're stuck in this whole "words are reality" hermeneutics-of-suspicion crap. For example, a lot of people who are friends of anarchist thought think that being anti-fa is like a badge of honor, because the theoretical opposite of an anarchist is a fascist, nazi, cop, authoritarian, right-winger, etc., but having read a lot of the stuff that anti-fa sympathizers write, a lot of their activities have very little to do with combating fascism. So much of the anti-fa scene around portland is just based on spectacular street fights, now that has to do with the white supremacists and fascists but they don't really understand that it's all just a performance where the fascists win every single time. To me, the ultimate anti-fascism is about a less strictly political approach to "non-violent communication", whereas suppressing the things that people say is also a form of jackal speech, at least when using those dynamics.

Part of the problem with fear nowadays is that it's a very disembodied thing, talking about this actually gives me a pretty extreme panic attack. To put it most simply, i just can't trust anybody...

"can anything other than time and first-hand experience serve that purpose?"

the things that can serve a second best are logical deduction and deconstructionism. So here, we become detectives, we start with something we know about a person, then we ask more more questions, getting more questions and answers, until we can safely make conclusions. Yet, as I'm sure you know, the conclusions that people online make are very frequently bogus.

conclusions ~= assumptions ~= generalizations ~= fears ~= prejudices

The thing I typically hate so much about people these days is they use all these absolutes, and i've figured that rather than totally discarding the "to be" form, our path out of that is using more qualifiers when talking, because then it becomes something that resembles doubt and accuracy...

I know this just adds to the confusion, but i've just generated some stuff for you to chew on for a bit.

dot - indeed. values (principles?), desires....  hopefully that all results in some clear priorities for how one chooses to move in the world.

a word - however ill-defined and over-used - that comes to mind is "authentic". how can i know that something i desire - or even some principle that i hold - is authentically my own?

it is entirely possible that, after much critical thought and analysis around it, i still cannot know with certainty. i long ago learned to accept that, and to trust myself enough to both listen and challenge. i refuse to be stymied by analysis paralysis.

another thing i think this points to - which many activists and leftists seem to deny or ignore - is that sometimes NOT acting is in fact the "authentic" way to proceed, and the path course of action most likely to jibe with one's desires.

I also find the concept of "reciprocity" to be very important in all of my interactions, not just with people, but animals as well. When i was originally reading about the concept, i saw that the writer was trying to use it as what appears to me as an anarchist "value", but no it's actually a law of the universe, at least the way i look at it. A less analytical version of "each and every action creates an equal and opposite reaction"

Reciprocity is pretty much the same thing as karma. Negative often reciprocity takes the form of: hostility, ignoring/blocking, vengence, theft, mind control, but since we are not enslaved to binaries, the opposite is also true.

We're gettin in to witchcraft here, something i've been contemplating a lot recently!

I'm suspicious of this question. wink

f@, i don't think i worry so much about whether something is mine any more. i think i've given that up as one of those questions that does in fact lead to paralysis.

although i am currently in a stage of approaching that question again, as i ponder grief and where i want to stand in relationship to it, considering cultural expectations as possible pointers for how to deal, knowing that i will make my own (sigh ;) ) decision(s), but still open to what i can learn from others who have dealt with it.

but i think that other people come into this -- as in, i have a number of associations who i interact with at least weekly, and they are like the float thingee attached to some rowboats, to make the boat part harder to tip over. (wikipedia has failed me.) no single one of them has too much say, but all of them together provide some indications that i'm not upside down.

Please log in or register to answer this question.