What form of Anarchism do you advocate and why?

Question

I just wanted to know what forms of Anarchism are dominate on this site? I can tell its not Anarcho-communism.

Comments

i like mine straight up, no dashes or capitalization or anything.

why? because the other stuff starts seeming like ideology (and even hierarchy, with experts and leaders at the helm) again. and it starts to seem more complicated and abstract. I like it simple and non-prescriptive and immediate.

edited: to add why

---

Like BAA, I tend to not hyphenate my 'anarchism.' But, that leaves me asking what my 'anarchism' is. I don't really have one, except as an abstract snapshot of where I am now. As living person, though, I move. Anarchy is movement, a process, not a static snapshot, and most definitely not a program of dead abstractions. In some ways, I agree with detractors who say anarchy is chaotic, because I can never see where I'm not ('the future,' 'Progress'). Where I'm going is always uncertain and unintelligible to a great degree. I don't even want to be dominated by my own past life and the views I held there!

I describe myself as 'anarchist,' because I'm seeking further disentanglement from authority, including my own past worldviews. There are some forms of authority I cannot perceive until I move into areas with which I'm not yet even acquainted. I simply don't worry so much about what the future will look like because of this.

That's me.

It seems like you (SaaB) have a blueprint and a favored path by which you judge what is, and is not, 'anarchism.' But, my question to you, is why does any 'form of Anarchism,' have to *dominate* on an anarchist site? Seems a bit of an oxymoron to me...

---

this is an interesting question to me just because anarchist conversation tends to have a million different labels for all the different trends in thought (isms) and ideologies, some of them which i still don't understand...

Answer 1

the kind with neither gods nor masters.

Answer 2

Pyro-Anarchism.

but exclusively non-exclusively; and only in small doses - it can be habit forming.

(Laugh if you want - and i hope you did, but i think we need to burn more shit.  or more to the point, relearn HOW to burn shit.  Small things safely; vehicles and buildings thoroughly; broadscale wild fires apocalyptically.
Fire is instrinsically linked with the primitive, with our hindbrain.  It not only cooks, but fashions and hardens our tools, creates our materials, wards off the cold and the dark and our foes, it harries our prey and clears pastures for their progeny.  And we have ever used it to kill our enemies;  for as long as we have tended fire and made enemies - we have used the one against the other.  
The modern Nation-State, all-seeing with its satellite networks and blanket surveillance, all-threatening with its paramilitarized police and stealth-drones of death; still when faced with a small brush fire it recoils to a fetal crouch, leaving the peasants to fend for themselves and clean up the mess.  The most sophisticated, heartless, murderous systems of modern civilisation - all are utterly helpless in the face of the most simple, basic forces of nature - fire and flood.

If you're still laughing - google Dresden.)

Comments

It's been a little while since I was last on here, what a wonderfully tickling and thought provoking post to come back to :)

Answer 3

Most (Edited in) anarchist regulars on here are post-left. Sorry to speak for you all, feel free to call me out on it, but it seems obvious enough to me to make that sweeping of a statement.

In the wake of the glorious defeat that is May 68 radicals began questioning the dominance of worker/union-centered struggle within anti-capitalist discourse. In that moment, and due to influential thinkers around that time, the presence of alienation in everyday life entered focus.

This rabbit hole greatly deepened multiple critiques of the world. It led to insurrectionary anarchism, primitivism/green anarchy, and other trains of thought that people on this site have probably experimented with or at least passed through in their thinking.

If you wanted to know more I would recommend doing some research on post-left itself, May 68, the Situationist International, Fredy Perlman, Alfredo Bonanno, Os Cangaceiros, John Zerzan, Fire to the Prisons, and the Autonome.

If you want to see more current stuff check out anarchistnews.org, Little Black Cart, Anarchy Magazine, Black Seed, Rolling Thunder, and other things you find connected to all of that. Crimethinc's "Ex-Worker" podcast goes into almost every possible topic of interest to post-left anarchists at this point.

EDIT: I added MOST to the first sentence.

Comments

i would just change that to "most regulars on here." although that might be out of date...

---

i've never considered myself post-left, but i also don't know if you (flip)consider me a regular.

Answer 4

Mass disengagement. Think of it as quiet riots, silent protests. A movement where people simply stop paying off debts, taxes, bills. Where they stop voting, stop demonstrating, lobbying for better laws. This just feeds the ideological beast. They can keep working, by all means, but keep all of their pay, if we don't pour it into the political machine it'll lose meaning eventually, and in weeks, months, organised, ordained society would fall. No need for a single death, a single raised voice, just complete despondency.They can arrest dozens of us, hundreds of us for tax evasion, but not all of us. There aren't enough jail cells in the world.

Comments

So revolution by tax evasion and the continuation of wage slavery...doesn't sound anything like any kind of anarchism I'd want to be even peripherally involved in.  To be frank it doesn't sound like anarchism at all.

Answer 5

I call myself an anarchist simply because I do not believe in rulers (human rulers). I believe in community and individual morals and I believe all men should live at peace with each other no matter the difference in opinions. I get my morals from Christianity, I would call myself an "In the Kingdom Christian" because I believe Jesus came to fulfill the law and to give us mercy from the burdens of the law and now the kingdom of heaven lives inside us.

John 18 33 Pilate, therefore, entered into the praetorium again, and called Jesus, and said to him, `Thou art the King of the Jews?'
34 Jesus answered him, `From thyself dost thou say this? or did others say it to thee about me?'
35 Pilate answered, `Am I a Jew? thy nation, and the chief priests did deliver thee up to me; what didst thou?'
36 Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'

Romans 8 There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;
2 for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

I also see where jesus is talking to the high priests and he is talking against them and their traditions and says to them...

Matthew 23 8 `And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
9 and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ.

That's just my spin on good old anarchy. Spread the freedom!

Comments

ew.
deeply ew.

---

While I agree that clisterdude88's anarchism is not my anarchism, and the multiple bible citations feels like religious propaganda, I am actually interested to see their answers to some of the questions here (assuming you aren't trollin', clisterdude88).

Christian anarchists are mostly an anomaly in both anarchism and Christianity, I frequently hear about folks like the Jesus Radicals and other C@'s, I have only met a couple, most of whom were more into Christian mysticism than bible quoting, though I met the Catholic Workers once many years ago, and they were all right. A little weird, but alright.

phew, that is the most i have written the word "christian" in two paragraphs, probably ever.

---

the most famous were of course dorothy day and tolstoy (at least, most famous among the folks i know).
and of course ingrate, you're right, which is why i didn't downvote. but the mass of citations is irritating to me, as are the lines like "jesus came to fulfill the law".
clisterdude88, if you're here to have actual conversations, you would be an interesting addition.
we'll see...

---

My experience, anarchist or otherwise, when encountering folks who leave lots-o-scripture is that either it's drive-by posting with no interest in engaging the those held as 'heathen' a priori, or, if those heathens doth protest, the bellyaching ensues charging those heathens with censorship and ridicule toward the faithful. For many christians, there seems a foundational siege mentality which is hardly conducive for dialog.

To be frank, I'm pretty much hostile toward the faithful (those who prattle scripture) for this reason (among others), but as dot said; we'll see in this case. I've just encountered the mix of arrogance and a whimpering will-to-be-The-Victim far too many times to really give a shit about their idiosyncratic mental gymnastics (ex: "Jesus was an anarchist.").

Note: I'm aware that Jacques Ellul considered himself a Christian anarchist, and his writing has been highly influential to me. The difference, here, is between a legacy of hard-hitting and engaging works (Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes) and simply spreading 'the Word.'

Edited for grammar.

---

Not trollin'. I'm fo real. I was raised Christian but not your usual SHOVE THE BIBLE DOWN YOUR THROAT Christian while condemning you to hell. I came to anarchy through libertarianism. I think freedom is only actual freedom when there is no human rulers.

The only problem I have with anarchy is that people always say that it is chaos. I would have to agree because I do not think that man is good natured by default. I think people are selfish and prideful really as a defense mechanism, because who isn't looking out for No. 1 (sinful nature)? I would disagree with 99% of Christians (that is why I don't particularly like calling myself a Christian). In my every day life I try to live as a follower of Jesus. I do not believe in judging people, condemning people, out casting people for different views, or going to war or anything like that.

Jesus said the sick need a doctor not the healthy, God took the promise he gave to Israel and gave it away to the gentiles (everybody else) who the promise was not for because Israel was an adulterous nation and defiled the law by creating their spoken traditions which they obeyed over the law of Moses. Jesus in Matthew 23 tells the people not to listen to the pharisees but to listen to the law of Moses (Law of God). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was he answered them saying "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and the second is love your neighbor as yourself, for on these 2 laws rest the ENTIRE law and the prophets." They got it wrong and MOST Christians today have it wrong. I don't like when Christians outcast people who are not Christians or for not believing exactly the same as they do because that is not being a light in the darkness. I see how people don't like Christians because of how they act and it has gotten really bad and history does not paint a great picture. But for me, I act in love towards everyone I come into contact with, I look out for others interests even if it means I have to bite the bullet, I associate with people who do things I believe are morally wrong and is sin, but I don't condemn them for their actions (take the log out of your own eye before you remove the spec out of your brothers eye), all I do is try to show them my point of view on the situation and so far I have gotten positive responses and not negative ones because I don't go into the discussion condemning them. I am more then willing to discuss any topic and I will gladly give my opinion and I would love to hear your opinions and side of the story. Spread the freedom!

---

AmorFati, I'm not doing a drive-by post. I am actually interested in the topic. I would love to hear what you guys think about Christian Anarchy and what you see wrong with it or what benefits you would see if someone was an anarchist and a Jesus follower. A couple verses (if you guys care to look into it) that I base my anarchy/christian beliefs on are:

1 Samual 8 (Israel asks for a king)
5 and say unto him, `Lo, thou hast become aged, and thy sons have not walked in thy ways; now, appoint to us a king, to judge us, like all the nations.'
6 And the thing is evil in the eyes of Samuel, when they have said, `Give to us a king to judge us;' and Samuel prayeth unto Jehovah.
7 And Jehovah saith unto Samuel, `Hearken to the voice of the people, to all that they say unto thee, for thee they have not rejected, but Me they have rejected, from reigning over them.
8 According to all the works that they have done from the day of My bringing them up out of Egypt, even unto this day, when they forsake Me, and serve other gods -- so they are doing also to thee.
9 And now, hearken to their voice; only, surely thou dost certainly protest to them, and hast declared to them the custom of the king who doth reign over them.'

Later in the book Israel states:
I Samuel 12:19 The people all said to Samuel, "Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king."

Those are 2 main Go-To verses that I try to show Christians who vote for the less of 2 evils and to those who think our system is amazing and a God send.

Matthew 23

Matthew 9
11 and the Pharisees having seen, said to his disciples, `Wherefore with the tax-gatherers and sinners doth your teacher eat?'
12 And Jesus having heard, said to them, `They who are whole have no need of a physician, but they who are ill;
13 but having gone, learn ye what is, Kindness I will, and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call righteous men, but sinners, to reformation.'

And there a whole lot more I could go into. But I will get to those as conversation proceeds (hopefully)

Spread the freedom!

---

I've also read the anarchist manifesto by Anselm Bellegarrigue and I absolutely loved it.

---

Hello clisterdude88.

You might be disappointed in that my main question for you is not related to the biblical quotes you list, but is rather how you came upon this train of thought: " I think people are selfish and prideful really as a defense mechanism, because who isn't looking out for No. 1 (sinful nature)?"

Specifically I ask because it seems like any study of anthropology shows that non-civilized societies flourished and survived through mutual aid. If anything, it seems like your perspective "sinful nature" is used in order to justify laying down the laws of God, to "fix" us of said nature.

Evoking an oppressive belief system based on observations of a fucked up society, in order to JUSTIFY a fucked up society...Are you a Christian or a Darwinist?

---

clisterdude88 - Thanks for responding. I am interested to learn about your perspective and be in dialogue with you (up until I am not anymore, at which point all bets are off!), one suggestion based on several years of participation here is to be judicious with the biblical citations. Not because they are biblical, per se (though that is pasrt of it - Christianity and anarchy are always in tension, as flip alluded above), but because answers that rely on authorities (whether Jehova, Bookchin, Kropotkin, Zerzan, Marx, Stirner, or anyone else) too heavily generally is less well received than ideas formulated in your own words.

Also, be prepared - we play rough here, and you are likely to encounter folks who find your perspective anathema to their own.

---

Not disappointed, I just wanted to state where I am coming from so you all aren't confused on how to interact with my comments and therefore able to edify me in your point of view.

To answer the questions. Outside of scripture I get my train of thought through my experiences with individuals. Most people I have dealt with are selfish (including myself) and we all look out for number one. That is why Jesus said Love others as much as you love yourself. We absolutely love ourselves, we cloth ourselves, we feed ourselves, when we are tired we go to bed etc etc. I would also say that you are correct (to a point) when it comes to "non-civilized" societies, but you also have to consider that people even in small groups are selfish and are looking out for themselves, there are still cases of rape, thieves, murder and so on. We have a need to survive and people do get pretty crazy when we get into a survival mode.

I also wouldn't say that I use it as an excuse to lay down the laws of God, that would be legalistic and I am not legalistic. My morals are for me to follow just as you your own. The Law of God was to show Israel that man could not obey and therefore needed a messiah. The Messiah came and the chosen people He came to killed Him, they were denied their inheritance and He gave it to the world for anyone who believed they were given grace and holiness with Jesus spiritually in Gods sight. The gospel 101.

The problem I see with studies on anthropology is that they are a general overlook of a society and an outside perspective on how it worked. Every society is made of individuals and individuals have individual thoughts, morals and beliefs. Statistics aren't 100% accurate either, they are more of a generality of information acquired by looking at what information is available.

What are you considering the oppressive belief that I would be evoking? Christianity? My view on Christianity is freeing more then oppressing.

We are all free from death, not by our own doing but by the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, He did something that we could not do and in doing so He gave everyone who believes complete forgiveness and equality with Him.

Not a Darwinist. I would be a creationist, not sure if I believe the genesis is a literal story or a metaphorical one. I also think there are books that were intentionally left out of the Canon (Modern Bible), like the book of Enoch and Jashar and a couple others because of End Times beliefs. Enoch points to Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD as the End Times (same as Revelation) Enoch was removed because it is too clear that Jesus was the messiah and the End Times were signified by His coming.

All these Christians who believe in a future "rapture" have no idea what the Bible teaches. They read it (actually they don't read it) as if the book was written to them when it was written a couple thousand years ago. Makes no sense.

---

Ingrate, thank you for the warning. I really am just dying to have educated free minds discuss with me over the uneducated sheep the modern church and society has created. I do not generally back down because I disagree to something and I most certainly don't want to shun anyone's opinions. I also want everyone to know that I do not condemn you for not believe as I do. Like I stated before, my beliefs are for me just as you your own. Just hungry to know more about where my fellow anarchists stand rather then getting it from the mainstream lies about anarchy and how it only creates chaos. Really I would like to know where people get their morals and why you think doing things one way is right and the other wrong, or is there even right an wrong? What is the foundation to your morals and what influences those morals?

---

I also understand the amnesty towards scripture being referenced. I think there is amnesty towards it because of who uses (abuses) it and the reason it is used. People usually will pick out a verse and use it all by itself rather then read the entire book or chapter to see what is actually being talked about. When I refer to a verse or verses, they either back up  the point I am trying to make or is the point but you must also consider the context the verse is used in the book/chapter. If you have made an assumption you don't agree with about the verse(s) I refer to please let me know your side of it and I can explain my side. Rather then just shunning me without knowing my point of view and therefore hindering yourself of information that you might be able to use to further argue your side if nothing else.

---

clisterdude88: i like your curiosity, i hope it lasts in all things...

I'm going to go back to your assumptions of human nature, about how we cannot be trusted to our own devices because we are always looking out for no. 1. This belief is the main belief used to justify any authority, and my version of anarchism (as well as for most on this particular forum) is a rejection of all authority. Yes, humans are selfish as all other animals are, but it is our selfishness that creates a desire to have good relationships with other people, hence, we don't "naturally" just want to kill our friends for money. Of course there are people who will slaughter their kin for material gain (duh, how else would the world be the way it is....) but they often do so at the expense of other things in life that are much more beautiful. Like, as in the case of Joseph Stalin, a life free of paranoia. Authoritarianism and conceptions of private property create situations where people would see it advantageous to act against "the others".

You made some good points on anthropology being an outsider perspective and statistics being bullshit

---

ricksantorum666, what do you mean by conceptions of private property?

I also do like how you explained your view on the nature of humans and how the selfishness can fuel the good just as well. A positive side to things is always nice but the bad still must be considered because it does exist.

---

Dot, why do statements like "jesus came to fulfill the law" irritate you? Just curious if it's the way I stated it or if there is something else.

Would it be less irritating if I said "I believe that Jesus came to fulfill the law"?

What is the back story to the irritation?

---

First of all, i don't like to think of things in terms of "positive" and "negative", life is too complicated for that. But what I'm trying to say is that the social context and structures for our society are what creates its monstrous evils. For example, in a small, communal anarchist group, how would it even be possible for me to murder someone and get away with it? And what I mean by "conceptions of private property" is that idea that something is YOURS, and you have a RIGHT to it, so therefore if someone takes it from you they DESERVE punishment. Hence, this is where the rulers come in, to decide who deserves which possessions and who doesn't. Look at the current arrangements and tell me whether you think authority does a good job of deciding these things.

---

I gotta agree with ricksantorum on 'human nature.' Hobbes said the same thing, and he used that to justify Leviathan, a highly authoritarian society which is 'necessary' to control humans 'base' instincts. So when I hear a religion making the same claim, I assume that its for the same reasons: to justify a form of domination and control. I also agree with rick's view on how looking at for oneself can translate into looking for others as well. I recommend reading "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos for examples of how this plays out culture-wise.

This culture promotes selfish, anti-social behavior, so it seems like basing a vision of 'human nature' on that perspective is flawed in that way.

I bring up the Darwin comparison because a similar situation played out in the advent of the industrial revolution. Massive poverty and starvation was rampant in the West. Darwin's ideas were just to justify the way that some could amass huge fortunes at the expense of all those starving people. "Let the strong survive, the poor are just weak and them dying is for the best." In a similar way, quoting 'Original Sin' seems to justify all the authoritarian systems that we have now, as rick was saying before.

I didn't mean to step on your toes about creationism. I don't have any strong feelings on the evolution vs. creationism debate, except that I think there's probably more than two sides to the issue.

---

clisterdude88; Since you do seem sincere, I will respond to you in due time in the coming days.

flip; you wrote:"I bring up the Darwin comparison because a similar situation played out in the advent of the industrial revolution. Massive poverty and starvation was rampant in the West. Darwin's ideas were just to justify the way that some could amass huge fortunes at the expense of all those starving people."

It may be that Darwin(ism) arose within a cultural milieu that was already utilizing Christian ideals to justify those very conditions. We mustn't forget the Europe was not only devastated socially, but ecologically as well. This is hardly surprising given a people who earnestly believe they've been given permission to dominate the Earth by the Master of the Universe Himself. I'll go more into this in answer to cd88.

As a note, though, I find that most people, atheist and christian alike, believe in creationism despite the 'scientific' protestations many of the former group often make.

---

ricksantorum666 & flip, I kinda see where you guys are coming from with the idea that I would use the sinful nature of man as an excuse to push my agenda and over all control the masses with my belief. That fact is that is a misconception of me and my belief and really an assumption. Life I said before my morals are for me as you your own.

I do agree that man has used the excuse that men or evil to put in place laws that give them the upper hand and that is wrong.

Sorry to quote more verses but I want you guys to see my stance in Christianity because I really do think that it is more beneficial then not towards true anarchy.

Like 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 18
21 Then Peter having come near to him, said, `Sir, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him -- till seven times?'
22 Jesus saith to him, `I do not say to thee till seven times, but till seventy times seven.

I don't push the law, I push the freedom from the law. If I pushed the law I would be condeming myself by the law I can't even keep even if I tried.

Matthew 5
27 `Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery;
28 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

And if I fail once I am guilty and deserve death (spiritually)

James 2
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

I push for freedom from human oppression and I believe Jesus pushed for the same thing.

Jesus being asked if it was right to pay taxes told them:

Luke 20
22 Is it lawful to us to give tribute to Caesar or not?'
23 And he, having perceived their craftiness, said unto them, `Why me do ye tempt?
24 shew me a denary; of whom hath it an image and superscription?' and they answering said, `Of Caesar:'
25 and he said to them, `Give back, therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;'

They understood the Law and knew the Tanakh where it says man is created in the image of God. He is telling them give Cesar back his money and live how God intended us to live, free from the rule of any man/society and to live as free men under God in grace and mercy.

And history has proven you right to assume that religion has played a part in tyranny, that is the human twist on it though, that is legalism and unfortunately it is a very big part of the religious world today and throughout history. I blame it on the de-education of the masses. The bible refers to humans as sheep, the dumbest animal out there, if 1 sheep jumps off a cliff the rest will to because they are stupid and humans are very similar. The biggest problem is that we have an uneducated populace who just take the views of other as their own without studying alternative ideas and actually reading and studying.

So in my opinion the "original sin" is to justify anarchy because we have been freed from death in the freedom we were given in the messiah.

---

so, cd88, you don't believe in human rulers, just non-human rulers?  such as christ or god?

---

The simple answer would be that I believe the order of things is:

Man-Christ-Father in Heaven

We can't get to the father without Christ and we can't come to Christ unless the Father calls us.

Therefore, if you do not believe like I do, it is not for me to force my belief on you because there is nothing you can do about it. I am simply here to do what I believe is right and in by doing so being a light in the darkness.

I don't believe in human rulers. However I do think people need some kind of moral basis and I am curious what non-christian anarchist refer to for their foundation of what is morally right or wrong or if there even is right and wrong.

---

cd88 wrote: "I don't believe in human rulers. However I do think people need some kind of moral basis "

Which people? Which morals? What makes up a 'moral basis?' What does such a 'basis' entail in terms of perspective, experience, qualities? From where I sit, it seems pretty conditional on a pretty static and narrow idealization of life and...well...for a lack of better words, ATM, *state* of consciousness.

cd88: "I am curious what non-christian anarchist refer to for their foundation of what is morally right or wrong or if there even is right and wrong."

I smell the nonsense of the 'absolute.' Get the quip? Anyway, it seems to me any question of 'is-ness' regarding right and wrong remains rather quixotic, more dubious  than the relational 'right' and 'left.' I can at least tell the difference between the latter concepts from where I'm living moment to moment. The former fades into the oblivion of personal taste at the end of the day...even if we find ourselves in agreement.

An interesting thing about your last paragraph though, and very consequential to what I'm indicating. You speak for yourself in terms of e-prime, yet ask your (potential) interlocutors to speak in terms of absolutes ('what **is** morally r&w; if there **is** r&w). Not only are speaking in a qualitatively different way about yourself and toward others, but what may this tell us about the aforementioned reliance upon a narrow spectrum of permissible perspectives.  

http://anarchy101.org/9200/what-think-about-eprime-language-possible-relevance-anarchy

---

cd88, I have a request. You can take it, leave it, run with it, eat it, whatever you you'd like, but can you refrain from quoting long and multiple scriptures? Not that it burns my sinful demonic eyes out or anything, but quite frankly I find it a pain in the ass to wade through to get **your** point. Perhaps a simple citation may be helpful to illustrate that point (ex 'John 3:13') and if we're interested, we can use biblegateway or whatever to look it up.

---

AmorFati, I read the eprime post earlier actually and that is the first time I have ever heard about it so I am somewhat a noob on that particular form of writing/speaking.

When I write and talk I try not to say THIS IS HOW IT IS because I don't think that my way of living is necessarily the 100% correct way for every/any other person (that's why governments usually fail IMO).

The reason I ask my questions in absolutes is because I want to know what others see as absolutes (if any) as well as see where you get your ideology from.

If I came in here basically TELLING you guys that what I believe is 100% FACT and REAL and was shoving it down your throats and condemning you for not believing what I THINK is the truth, you all would see me as a lunatic and probably just hurl slander back at me at a pace 20x faster then I could respond to, haha. I don't roll that way. I will agree to disagree over creating an enemy over the difference in opinion. Believe me I disagree with almost everybody I know in one way or another.

I'm not hear to attack or condemn or even to convert. I am here to learn.

I will start to post the reference rather then the entire text (unless I can't help it!).

---

AmorFati: "Which people? Which morals? What makes up a 'moral basis?' What does such a 'basis' entail in terms of perspective, experience, qualities? From where I sit, it seems pretty conditional on a pretty static and narrow idealization of life and...well...for a lack of better words, ATM, *state* of consciousness."

Which people: Every person
Which morals: How do we interact with other people? What is the basis of interaction and thought?
What make up a moral basis: To me a moral basis would be a conscious decision on how to go about a situation as the individual sees as ?correct?. or is there not ever a correct or is that irrelevant?

The basis would determine the actions taken by the individual in their own experiences/interactions with other people and in situations.

Also, do you not believe there are absolutes?

---

1.  "Which people: Every person"

So, every person forms their own set of morals/rules?

2. "How do we interact with other people? What is the basis of interaction and thought?"

Norms and morals arise differently. Norms evolve, emerge. Morals literally mean 'rules' and in practice are the rules set by and through power. Norms are more fluid in practice than rules, they evolve over time but tend to be far changeable as conditions change. Rules, by definition, are more absolutist given the enforced narrowness and conformity required.

"To me a moral basis would be a conscious decision on how to go about a situation as the individual sees as ?correct?. or is there not ever a correct or is that irrelevant?"

You are not only ambiguous, but ambivalent as well. On one hand you're saying (answer 1) individuals (should?) form their own 'moral basis' yet each (should?) form them on the basis of interaction with others. The ambiguity comes in where you confuse norms and morality. Morality may become norms given enough time and enforcement (one principle way we've become domesticated/civilized), but norms arise, evolve, also prior to and outside of the confines of morality. If I am to form some 'moral basis,' and everyone else is to form one as well, whose moral basis (rules) are to provide the 'moral basis' of our interaction?

3. "Also, do you not believe there are absolutes?" I think belief in 'them' is an embrace of a deep nihilism.

Edited for typo and clarity.

---

AF, would you expand on your last comment (#3)? i don't think i understand it.

---

cd88: Please don't take my style of writing as an attack. You do seem  (and 'seem' is key to my meaning) sincere. I desire only to flesh things out and respond as directly as possible.

My point about e prime is that it indicates some patterns I've observed over time. First, many, if not most, people frame a discussion of this kind in  two contradictory, though simultaneous, ways: a demand for 'absolute' positions for my interlocutor and an escape-hatch for myself built upon conditions, context, and circumstances. Second, following from this, there arises a subtle discrepancy of perception at play, even if unwittingly, in terms of any controversy coming to the foreground. A demand for 'absolutes' equates to a demand for 'correct seeing,' an a priori *idealization of what is to be seen* by the very one who's framed the discussion with a relational escape-hatch for themselves!

---

baa; usage of 'absolute' tries to relate to us a non-concept, really. It contradicts itself both on its own terms and, even more importantly, in the very attempt to define 'absolute' at all!

'Absolute' has been held, defined, to be perfect, complete, unmixed, unlimited, free from restriction, unrelated, unconditional, incomparable, etc. Yet, in order to be defined this 'concept' must have limits, restriction(s), be comparable with 'things-not-it,' must be perceived and/or conceived, which are relational, conditional activities.

'Absolute' is no-thing, nihil; a spook word, no matter how many sing 'its' praises or use the word as a supposed 'objective' stamp of approval for their own perspective.

Edited for clarity and grammar.

---

do you mean that people who say they believe in absolutes don't (generally) see it as deep nihilism themselves (they see it as a concept or belief system), but you see it as nihilistic?

---

Close enough, yes. When someone uses the word 'absolute' ask them to define it. In my experience, its self-contradictory usage becomes more apparent, as well as it constituting nothing but a demand for seeing 'correctly.'

Edit: to expand my thoughts.

---

i like that exercise! and i plan to try it. thanks.

---

Oh, and I wanted to thank you for your question regarding e prime. I've been following the discussion and experimenting using it.

---

how about this, AF.....when someone says they believe in absolutes, they simultaneously see it as non-belief (things just "are" this or that way without my thinking so) and as a belief (i hold this absolute to be true).

does that sound closer to what you meant?

edited to add: thanks for the thanks about eprime. :) i found a few articles that expand on the potential benefits, as well as possible traps that can ensue. i think i originally discovered it somewhere in the anarchist library site, and then i kept researching other articles. if you'd like the links, i'll gladly gather them up again and post them here. and i'd like to hear the results of your experimentation if and when you'd like to share them.

---

baa; when someone says they believe in absolute(s) in the sense of a non-belief (as you put it) are they not presuming the 'self-evidence' of the absolute in question? 'Evidence' means 'to see (clearly)' but an equation of (an) absolute with self-evidence demands we see something 'correctly,' no? Such a presumption would further entail an a priori idealization of what counts as seeing something 'truely,' 'as it is,' 'in-itself'...self-evident. In other words, the *idea* of what *should be* the case precedes any sensuous, embodied engagement, within and as our own perspective/perception, and in the case of concepts the difficultly increases with the level of abstraction.

Oh, and I think leaving the links for e prime you've provided would be better just staying there. This thread already has become quite a wade...:-)

edited for clarity...?

---

hey AF...perhaps my first paraphrase worked better than the second...but I think I got your meaning and i like your take and plan to use it next time i discuss "absolutes" with someone...that shouldn't take too long!

i didn't provide any links in the other thread for eprime either, but will if asked.

i look forward to our next conversation.

---

baa: "that shouldn't take too long!"

Not on the internetz. So many key punching defenders of the faith out there.

As to the eprime thread, I think any resources might be helpful not only to myself, but for anyone who's interested.

---

AmorFati, no worries, I understand where you are coming from.

OK, so lets see if i understand your spin on "absolutes".

You say to describe absolute and when it is described it is usually (or always?) described contradictory to itself.

I would describe absolute as: truth. That which exists, unaltered.

Does that contradict itself? Or is that description based on non-absolute assumptions.

---

cd88: "I understand where you are coming from."

Do you?

cd88: "... your spin on "absolutes"."

This has nothing to do with my 'spin.' I'm very aware of this christian tactic of silencing debate by way of mass emotional  appeal and shaming, so no need to try with me. This has to do with how the word 'absolute' has been used historically...within the context of christian thought. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01060c.htm. It seems they, the christians, can't figure it out themselves, and yet expect those under colonial subjugation to come up with The Answer to their own problematic formulations as to how and what the world "is," on pain of death, if not its prolongation by way of ridicule of being 'backward,' 'primitive,' if not 'degenerate.'  

cd88: "I would describe absolute as: truth. That which exists, unaltered."

What do you mean by 'unaltered?' Perception cannot be but 'altered.' What do you mean by 'truth' if not something *related* to belief,sociability, or testability by way of abstraction? And then, what do you mean by 'exist?'

Edited.

---

AmorFati, when I speak of absolute I would consider God the absolute and his word (That would be my opinion). I am asking if YOU believe in any type of absolute, not necessarily a God but something that is just an absolute truth.

Also, in order to be absolute, the absolute would have to be unaltered. Whether or not the perception of the individual believes it to be true does not change the fact that something is absolute.

---

cd88, I find it refreshing that at least you admit that this is a matter of opinion. Far too many people get the notion that 'truth' exists out there somewhere when truth really finds its basis in the conceptual. Concepts cannot be but relational.

But, then you go and ask me about 'absolute truths.' Personally, I don't think I've come across a more self-contradictory notion that's haunted us human primates (particularly those labeled 'Western') and allowed us wreaked so much havoc to one another and the planet.

Questions of 'absolute truth' have nothing to do with my belief in them, but in whether or not such an (anti-)concept can stand on its own. It cannot. 'Truth' cannot be conceived as anything but relational, if the word is to have any meaning at all.

1. Believing in 'truth' simply bespeaks one's relation to that concept. Faith explicitly expresses a relationship, and in this case, a relationship to a concept. In your case, 'God/Absolute' cannot be defined, yet has to be compared, no? There has to be not-God, other-than-God. Faith maintains a relationship, yet 'absolute' means non-relational. Another contradiction. So God cannot be spoken in terms of The Absolute...and a absolute cannot be spoken of at all. When speaking of 'truth' as an 'object' then any notion of 'absolute' dissolves for obvious reasons.

2. In terms of logic and science (if one is to seek 'truth' within the sciences) any 'truth' derived is related to those axioms within which particular logical systems operate. In other words, those axioms cannot be tested by themselves. 'Truth' becomes a circularity at the end of the day.

3. No truth can be absolute given the definitions given for that latter (non-)concept. Again, even attempting to define 'absolute'  plays into its self-contradiction. A definition provides limits, comparison, and restrictions. So 'absolute' and 'truth' make for bad bed buddies, you see?

In sum, 'absolute truth' can only be silly talk, unless of course one attempts to dominate another through using it through blatant coercion as well as subtle manipulation. 'Absolute' only adds a authoritative-sounding spook to an already problematic concept (truth).

---

just a quick thought/question on your (AF and cd88) discussion...do you think the words "absolute" and "truth" actually mean the same thing? i hadn't thought about this before...it just occurred to me...so i wonder about it myself.

in other words if you call something "absolute" doesn't that imply" truth", and vice versa?

---

bornagainanarchist, I would say that in order for something to be absolute it would have to be truth.

AmorFati, I would say that that is where "faith" comes in. I have faith in an (singular) absolute that defines my sense of what truth is. But you would say that in itself is contradictory in its own nature?

---

cd88, if you switched the words "absolute" and "truth" in your sentence above, would the meaning change? and if so, how?

---

cd88: "But you would say that in itself is contradictory in its own nature?"

Indeed.

---

baa: "do you think the words "absolute" and "truth" actually mean the same thing?"

'Absolute,' once again, speaks of the unlimited, unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, complete, free from relations, incomparable, etc. The verbal grunt refers to nihil; nothing at all. It cannot. To refer is relational, conditional, comparative. It cannot even retain a measure of abstraction, since an abstraction is derived through a process, thus it too must be conditional, relational, etc.

'Truth' on the other hand, must refer to something in order to retain any meaning (if we want to retain the meanings of this verbal grunt). 'Truth' refers to a relational activity, as concept of comparison, whereas 'absolute' denies this very possibility. So, no, as ambiguous as 'truth' may be as a concept, I don't think it can  mean the same as that which denies the very conditions making 'truth' at all meaningful.

My opinion is that 'absolute's' gotta go.

But we (you, cd88, Lantz, myself or anyone else) can talk about all that here:

http://anarchy101.org/9389/notion-absolute-continue-relevance-within-anarchy-anarchists

---

bornagainanarchist, according to my definition, no.