onoira [they/them]

  • 2 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 14th, 2024

help-circle

  • not the GP, but i did voice frustrations that were probably uncalled for.

    i resonated with the image after this specific comment:

    […] assuming that all people are not going to be petty and antagonistic is even more utopian that post-scarcity.

    this brought to mind thousands of conversations i’ve had before which would have effectively ended there — with the words ‘utopian’, ‘idealist’ or ‘unrealistic’.

    OP got some good answers which they seem satisfied with. this was all a reaction to the state of the discussion at the time.

    I get that anarchists probably get tired of answering questions, but it also seems like an important part of getting people who aren’t already 100% onboard to better understand anarchy?

    i think this works best thru sharing anarchistic (not specifically anarchist) books (to add perspective), and praxis (to experience/internalise anarchist organising principles).

    hypotheticals can be amusing among likeminds, but it’s usually just deconstructive otherwise.








  • my guess is it was trying to get you to help one of its friends or something.

    that was my first guess, but it didn’t seem like it was leading me anywhere.

    i’m a little worried now.

    I’d have had a good search around the area befriending crows can actually bring you some benifit like shiny gifts

    when i was homeless, i shared my food with a crow. i got them to bring me coins by feeding them double portions when they brought monies.

    or in some cases crow bodyguards as they actually recognise individuals as friends etc.

    that’s my current relationship to the corvids in town. a long time ago i rescued a magpie from two seagulls, and since then all the corvids no longer fly away when i come near them. the magpies even defended me from a seagull one day!

    but they otherwise don’t approach me, and we don’t ‘communicate’.


  • that was my first guess, but after i tried getting back on the path they only kept putting grass on my feet. i tried holding still, backing away, moving toward them, moving back into the grass, making noises, and checked in the bush — it just kept putting grass on me. i didn’t immediately see anything. i was afraid of scaring or upsetting them, so i left.

    someone else suggested they’re a juvenile that doesn’t know how to feed themself.





  • It was a revelation to me: to have flat structures, you not only need to make it possible to organize without hierarchy, but you also need a process to constantly weed out emerging hierarchies.

    i’ve noticed this is a common source of disagreement i keep having with nonanarchists.

    where someone thinks that i’m advocating purely for the organisational aspects of anarchism, but not also materially, socially, culturally, and politically. they’ll dismiss my criticisms of the current system or proposals for alternatives as ‘that would never work today’, and instead cite monolithic, mythological essentialisms like ‘human nature’ at me which is just their opportunity to mansplain capitalist logic to me and throw down some ‘might makes right’ moral argument. people who think tool libraries would never work because one time their underpaid coworkers kept stealing other persons’ food from the breakroom fridge or something and well that’s proof of the greed inherent to all human beings and no we will not interrogate what leads them to stealing food. material conditions? what’s that?

    anarchism to me isn’t simply a worldview or a form of organisation: it’s a lifestance, a lifestyle, a way of being, a way of thinking and a way of acting — and i believe it works best when it is all of those things. social change is cultural change is political change. when i advocate for change, i’m advocating to change both the system and the people who recreate it.

    ‘but how will you prevent [insert consequence of hierarchical conditioning] from happening under anarchism?’






  • syndicalism is a tendency of libertarian socialism. it was anarchists engaging in — typically violent — direct action that bred the popular labour movement, women’s suffrage, the abolition of racial segregation, and others.

    How did a philosophy of minimized government involvement contribute to the regulations and enforcement mechanisms around our labor laws?

    … because we live in a society? the State needs labour, but if all the labourers refuse to sell themselves until labour-buyers stop X, then the State may decide very graciously to abolish the practise of X. so the theory of syndicalism goes: rinse and repeat till you have eroded all the power of labour-buyers, and you can seize the workplace and cut out the State.




  • i found this point a bit unclear (emphasis mine):

    People who bear a middle class culture need to unlearn it, as it manifests in a politics of comfort: building informal social power, flattening contradictions, and avoiding conflict. Currently, its crusade is to destroy practices of transformative justice—and the difficult experiences those practices come from—in favor of the kind of attitudes (simultaneously fragile and vicious) that flourish on social media.

    what are some examples of what the author might mean here?