#lefty theory

[a-book-dragon]

i hate the term 'masculinism' or 'macho' being thrown around by certain types of leftists to decry any type of strength, aggression, assertiveness, individualism and will to power.

i remember last year's annual antifascist protest in my country (bulgaria is the only country that allows a fascist march by the name of lukovmarsh, and we protest against it every year).

some anarchists, including myself, were dressed for black block in order to protect our anonymity and communicate that we're ready to fight that we must. we didn't have to (the protest is sadly legal and there's always cops around).

despite nothing violent happening, there were a bunch of activists who were also there - liberal as well as 'anarchists' - who complained on social media about us (especially the boys among us i suppose) 'looking like nazi football hooligans', being 'macho' and 'scaring away the immigrants and roma people who would have otherwise joined the protest' (there was a whole bunch of them there; also, implying they're some scaredy animals who can't understand our slogans and read our signs is deeply disrespectful to them).

that was a long time ago... but it is ingrained in my mind to this day still. such a clear example why the left is failing. if this is not the result of some sort of state propaganda to debilitate the movement, i don't know what is. ngo's and liberals are infiltraring leftist and anarchist circles with their disgusting pacifism.

building power is necessary to any movement and violence doesn't necessitate hierarchy or oppression. will to power is a beautiful thing - if it is power TO do something and affirm yourself, not power OVER someone. fighting to protect a cause, being a shield between harm and those who can't fight for some reason - now that's noble.

violence and aggression are also not necessarily restricted to men. implying so means being disrespectful to women and queer people's abilities, their capacity for aggression, their dignity in fighting back (yes, women tend to be physically weaker - we got projectile weapons from pepper spray to guns to bridge the gap!). the answer to fascist and macho aggression is not simply building mutual aid and taking care of each other through the trauma they're causing, laying low, appealing to the public in a moralistic victimizing way (look at us - we're peaceful and helpless and can't defend ourselves! we're martyrs! help us daddy government!)

although mutual aid is imperative, sometimes we gotta beat a fascist to a pulp. we have to have the capacity for violent retribution. buy a weapon, learn some martial arts. don't appeal to the morality of mainstream society - it's a doomed affair from the start.

especially women and queer people, who are more or less socialized in not showing overt power and aggression - you have every right to take up space, to follow your desires freely, to be furious when patriarchal forces infringe on your dignity! build community, build power, and show the men you're no lesser than them! not through moralistic pleas, but through actual threats to patriarchal power.

now, some spaces in anarchist movements do tend to be more masculinized (the antifascist black block i was in, for instance, was made up of mostly cishet men). all feminist of course - but not perfect, still condescending sometimes, still holding on to antiquated forms of chivalry (i love chivalry; i hate that it's seen as a 'men only' territory). does that mean that as a woman i gotta restrict myself to mutual aid, community gardens, solidarity kitchens ('get back in the kitchen' much?).

no! all of the above is important and hard work, i've done it and deeply respect people who do it. but i will not reduce myself to this type of resistance only. being in masculinized spaces means that i get to reclaim my space in them. men have become the sole occupants of things that are for everyone. every day, i demonstrate to my male friends and comrades that women are not weak, we're not to be messed with. i speak my mind assertively, get into intellectual conflicts, always affirming myself through affirming feminism. i treat them like complete equals and expect the same in return. i don't hesitate to interrupt them; i adopt a confident body language. i strategically observe how they assert themselves and get what they want. i take what i like from masculinity and fight against the rest.

so what if the mosh pit in the punk concert is mostly men? i'm not 'uncomfortable' and don't feel 'unwelcome' - i get in and fiercely dance and shove and punch to show these boys who's boss.

so anyway, this got way too long. the point is - respect and assert yourself, fiercely defend yourself and your community, and don't let the state, men, or anyone else have a monopoly of violence. also, fuck pacifism (A)

[a-book-dragon]

the notion that guns are inherently fascistic and masculinist is the biggest fucking antifeminist psyop ever.

like use your critical thinking skills. you've got women, who tend to be, on average, physically weaker than men. they also, on average, have less institutional power. not to talk about queer and trans people and their utter marginalization.

a gun in my purse + some training would instantly resolve my fear of walking alone in the dark, my fear of stalkers, physical or sexual abusers, what have you. it would put me on a more or less equal level with a muscled-up meathead who things physical strength=right to oppress.

of course not everyone is capable of using guns - or violence as a whole, which only means that those of us who can should be doubly prepared in order to protect our communities.

the leftist veneration of weakness and helplessness has got to stop. destroy what destroys you. we protect us. (A)

[a-book-dragon]

bookchin and durkheim

there's a striking parallel between emile durkheim's "the elementary forms of the religious life" and murray bookchin's "social ecology and anarchism".

durkheim, in his observations of totemism in australia (at times rather prejudiced, as is custom for his time) comes to a striking conclusion. people classify themselves into clans, and each clan has a totem - an animal, plant or natural phenomenon that's usually an important part of their everyday life. however, not only people are assigned the clan name, but also OTHER animals/plants/phenomena connected in some way to the one whose name the clan bears. sometimes, it's obvious - birds are considered a part of the wind clan. other times, not so much - certain types of fish are a part of the snake clan. etc... durkheim concludes that humans are capable of this "rudimentary" organizing and classifying of nature BECAUSE they've first classified and organized themselves into certain societal roles and categories. how we view nature then is socially constructed...

and that last idea is the basis of bookchin's idea of social ecology. he points out how in more egalitarian tribal societies, like those studied by durkheim, animals, plants and natural phenomena were thought of as equal and interconnected to humans, all of them a part of a natural cycle necessary for maintaining balance. when monarchy was the prevailing form of social organization, people considered the lion a "king" ruling over the other animals (now seen as inferior to humans), each of whom had a fixed role and characteristics. when capitalist "individualism" came along, it was accompanied by the competitive, "survival of the fittest" theory of nature.

who would've thought these two had something in common!

[a-book-dragon]

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

In Bruce Levine's career he as spoken with hundreds of people diagnosed with ODD & ADHD. An astonishing number of these people are also anti-authoritarians.

Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance.

...

... those afflicted with ADHD have deficits in what he calls “rule-governed behavior,” as they are less responsive to rules of established authorities and less sensitive to positive or negative consequences. ODD young people, according to mainstream mental health authorities, also have these so-called deficits in rule-governed behavior, and so it is extremely common for young people to have a “dual diagnosis” of AHDH and ODD.

...

Many people with severe anxiety and/or depression are also anti-authoritarians. Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized; but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.

...

Americans have been increasingly socialized to equate inattention, anger, anxiety, and immobilizing despair with a medical condition, and to seek medical treatment rather than political remedies. What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.

[a-book-dragon]

Non-Western Anarchisms

Jason Adams Non-Western Anarchisms Rethinking the Global Context

[a-book-dragon]

Comrades, we are La Otra Campaña, and with us are sex workers, with us are homosexuals, lesbians, transgender people, with us are street children, street workers, small tenants, informal merchants, market traders, with us are indigenous peoples, with us are peasants without land or in the process of losing it, with us are workers, students, teachers, the elderly, and with us are the ugly ones, the filthy ones, and we are here in La Otra Campaña, the best of this country, and that is all which we are going to do.

Until Death if it is Needed, subcomandante Marcos

[a-book-dragon]

The authors write their chapters on cities against the idea that large populations need layers of bureaucracy to govern them—that scale leads inevitably to political inequality. Many early cities, places with thousands of people, show no sign of centralized administration: no palaces, no communal storage facilities, no evident distinctions of rank or wealth. This is the case with what may be the earliest cities of all, Ukrainian sites like Taljanky, which were discovered only in the 1970s and which date from as early as roughly 4100 B.C., hundreds of years before Uruk, the oldest known city in Mesopotamia. Even in that “land of kings,” urbanism antedated monarchy by centuries. And even after kings arose, “popular councils and citizen assemblies,” Graeber and Wengrow write, “were stable features of government,” with real power and autonomy. Despite what we like to believe, democratic institutions did not begin just once, millennia later, in Athens.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/graeber-wengrow-dawn-of-everything-history-humanity/620177/

[a-book-dragon]

look at this simple graph. would you believe me if i told you that in the book i'm reading they proceeded to explain this concept in at least 2 pages of incomprehensible academic gibberish? many scholars were cited and nothing was understood.

but look at this, so easy to understand... we humans really ARE made to think in schemes and images, aren't we.

to my understanding, single-loop learning is figuring out how to walk a path from A to B and get over the obstacles on said path. double-loop learning is defining the goal (i.e. i an going to B to buy food) and thinking of and comparing different paths. triple-loop learning is stuff like "is going from A to B the right thing to do? i gotta feed my kids but i can't leave them alone. better talk to them and reach a consensus/ask another trusted person to help me"

the example i gave is intuitive, but think how many people are stuck in single- or double- loop learning on issues like, say, economic growth or the preservation of cultural tradition.