đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș joel-williamson-constructing-an-unfixed-freedom.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:37:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Constructing an Unfixed Freedom Author: Joel Williamson Date: October, 14th 2022 Language: en Topics: mutualism, egoism, tactics, emancipation, liberation Source: https://www.mutualismcoop.com/contemporary-mutualist-text/constructing-an-unfixed-freedom
In every interaction and through every social structure, humans exercise
an unavoidable psychological instinct known as self interest. It is a
deep motivational factor that is inseparable from our subjectivity.
Whether we are kind or cruel, it operates in the background of our
decisions and persists despite our awareness of its presence. It is a
definitive root feature of the human animal.
While such an amoral observation does not speak to how one ought pursue
their interest, it may create a foundation on which we can explore such
matters and build a politic worth having.
Self interest is intertwined with the desire to self direct. When an
individual self determines, they exercise their will to freedom. The
expression of that freedom, however, never occurs in a vacuum and is not
shaped in a bubble. It is understood and actualized through the many
spheres of social interactions we encounter throughout our lives.
Interlocking webs of relationships, formal and otherwise, mold the
content of our self interest in a way that reveals the importance of
reciprocal freedom. A socially reciprocal environment means every
individual is free to do as they please, so long as they do not prevent
anyone else from exercising equal freedom. Such a condition would
express perfect mutuality. It would be fitting, then, to call this
atmosphere one of ethical mutualism.
We are unfortunately living in a world that falls short of the standards
in ethical mutualism. Our current conditions are defined by
hierarchical, large concentrations of power, money, and influence. Our
political institutions are coercive and our economies grow out of
historical plunder. Why is there such a gulf between ethical mutualism
and the pervasiveness of domination as we know it? To this point, a
crude egoism has haunted history. War, enclosure, and bigotry has
conquered the world and has largely convinced us to turn away from
meaningful attempts toward mutuality. Lording over others has become the
norm thanks to a toxic cultural hegemony that rewards such behavior. The
root of this hegemony grows from the misguided attempt at finding
freedom through domination. If such a root is not cut at the base, it
can grow into a mass fetish of hierarchy that persists through the
retributive elimination of spontaneity. Such a vulgar attempt at order
denies us true expression of our self interest by mistaking our freedom
for nationalism, tribalism, and statism. Under these conditions we are
taught and expected to curtail empathy and to find our place in
proscribed, categorizable boxes. These expectations are maintained
through coercive law and voluntarily perpetuated by those who choose to
enforce it. Dominating others, then, is an exercise in a confused will
to freedom. Power motivates us insofar as it offers us self direction.
But a self direction that impedes on another is a vain effort towards
self actualization. The will to power falls short of getting to the root
of our motivations. It encourages us to participate in oppression, and
seeing it through would ultimately be a denial of oneself. We do not
need to lower ourselves to the level of tyrants just because Nietzscheâs
god is dead.
Having largely abandoned cooperation, our current state of affairs are
marked by class stratifications which entangle us in a mesh of
conflicting interests that benefit some at the expense of others. At
some point, it becomes inconceivable for those in power to consider
moving toward social conditions that approximate ethical mutualism since
their material and psychological comforts depend on maintaining the
status quo. As for the many that are subject to said power, the will to
freedom holds a shining, emancipatory promise of mutuality. The crucial
challenge of our time is to discover creative ways out of this political
maze of control.
The only political philosophy fit for realizing ethical mutualism is one
that elevates freedom as its highest value. There is no better proposal
or known expression of this tendency than Anarchism. Despite propaganda
efforts which promote common misconceptions of Anarchy as vicious chaos
and violence, it is actually an intricate contemplation on the human
condition which promotes freedom more passionately than any other
political philosophy. It is little known or appreciated that Anarchism
has actually been grappled with throughout history at various
capacities, and any honest contemporary political philosophy should also
contend with the ethical problems of power and institutional violence
that Anarchy challenges. For those of us who reject this normalized
violence, Anarchy is our friend. It is the true expression of the self
interested will to freedom and the way to realize the promise of ethical
mutualism.
Anarchy posits that self-determination is so fundamentally important to
the human experience, that any force in contradiction to it owes
justification for denying this freedom. The vastness of ways we might be
denied freedom can be expressed through a variety of culturally
legitimized institutions both religious and secular. Once in a recorded
video interview, well known anarchist and agitator, Emma Goldman,
defined Anarchism as âa social philosophy which aims at the
emancipation, economic, social, political, and spiritual of the human
race.â This means, according to Anarchism, all forms of authority are
undesirable and that we ought to aim toward building a society based on
voluntary cooperation and free association for everyone.
The first person to ever call themself an anarchist and mutualist was
french philosopher, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhonâs Mutualist
Anarchism is an expansive philosophy which includes ethical, political,
and economic implications that wonât be fully explored in this article.
I would, however, like to highlight some of his insights that are
relevant to the trajectory of the arguments in this text. When
considering how to progress toward social freedom, Proudhon took an
explicit stance against what he called absolutism. For Proudhon, this
meant rejecting perfect utopian end goals marked by categorizable and
determined stages in history. Proudhon instead favored an open ended
process that balanced the ambitious goal of freedom with our actually
existing unfree concrete reality. He took a âprogress by approximationsâ
approach where more and more freedom would be won through gradual
pragmatic steps toward liberation. Proudhonâs perspective on the
advancement of freedom is crucial to the long term success of Anarchism
and we stand to benefit from this view.
Beyond Proudhonâs guidance for avoiding absolutism and utopianism, there
are other pitfalls we might consider steering clear of when
contemplating how to expand freedom. One of which is shrinking the goal
of Anarchism to abolishing what are immediately identifiable and obvious
forms of unequal power dynamics. All identifiable systems of oppression
should be overcome, but so should the less obvious examples of
unfreedom. It is our job to identify these systems, to move beyond them,
and to build freedom in their stead.
That is why it is best to imagine the anarchist project as a gradualist
arrow, not one limited to a singular focus on any given goal such as
statelessness. Evolving beyond the state is a fundamental aim of Anarchy
but it is not the end, because liberation, properly understood, has no
limits. We accomplish certain objectives on the way to statelessness but
freedom itself is unfixed and ever expanding.
There are also tactical problems to consider when we minimize Anarchism
to state abolition. One of which is, if youâre serious about the matter,
you may find yourself allying with hostile forces. The political
nihilism of a thin anti-statism is easily co-opted by fascists, for
example, who can sometimes also be interested in tearing down the status
quo. Unfortunately, fascists are only interested in political subversion
in order to implement an even greater authoritarianism. A wide variety
of reactionaries advocate for an accelerationist agitation toward civil
war. Populist number games like these are well suited for naive recruits
who may be able to provide ammunition to a foolishly bloody means and
end. One might unwittingly become a pawn in the murderous attempts of
nazis without a broader and deeper analysis of freedom.
Beyond the problem of fascists, a thin commitment to anti-statism may
also lead one to a kind of organized brutishness found in formal
revolution supported by the likes of tankies. Despite giving lip service
to anti-imperialism or making rhetorical gestures toward freeing labor,
state-communists are not fond of projects interested in actual freedom.
One need look no further than the Kronstadt Rebellion in order to
understand just how deadly red-authoritarianism can be for anarchists
and their passion for a world beyond hierarchy. This is why any
unnuanced call for left-unity should be handled with deep suspicion.
Without the immediatism of red or brown formal revolution and with an
acknowledgment that gradual approximations of freedom should be
considered, one might also fall into the trap of liberal reformism.
Despite this probably being the lesser of three evils, it is
definitionally the type of political entrenchment that Anarchy seeks to
move beyond. Getting caught in its web ensures our defeat precisely
because the electoral-reformist process itself is a practical
contradiction of means and ends for anarchists. That doesnât mean we
shouldnât celebrate or encourage the liberalization of drug or border
policy but, in light of the overturning of Roe v Wade in america, it
should be obvious that we must imagine and learn ways to act directly
toward freedom. Reform, like gradualism, moves slowly, but the potential
failure of any creative, experimental insurrection costs a lot less than
the energy drain of electoralism.
Unequal power dynamics manifest in a variety of complex and particular
ways that can be difficult to overcome using one-size-fits-all
solutions. The way in which we act directly to free ourselves and others
will differ based on the situation and context. For instance, navigating
around the limitations of a failing healthcare system is incredibly
difficult for many people, and there may be a host of reasons why
someone might consider creating or acquiring their own life saving
medicine illegally. This is Anarchy in action. Similarly, it may be the
case that an individual is dealing with an abusive partner or toxic
parent. This person desperately needs a way to exit their vulnerable
situation, and the method they use to carve a path to freedom may look
very different from the struggle for healthcare. Each of these
unfortunate circumstances are examples of unfreedom and it is important
to highlight how they require different tools for dealing with their
respective problems.
Additionally, it is worth keeping in mind that even as we experiment in
freedom, the many ways authoritarianism can creep into our lives
institutionally or interpersonally is very complex. So complex that they
sometimes require hyper-individualized solutions that no party or
blueprint could ever hope to solve. It is complexity turtles all the way
down. A task uniquely fit for the gradualist arrow of Anarchy.
When we channel our self-interested will to freedom through ethical
mutualism, we create a foundation on which we might consider the only
political philosophy that holds freedom as its highest value â
Anarchism. Reorienting ourselves toward seeing Anarchy as a gradualist
arrow allows us to approach life and our passion for freedom more
holistically. This proposal, while more abstract in certain ways, offers
a politic that is sustainable and realistic.
All liberatory goals are important, be they short term, long term,
micro, or macro. If we plant the seeds of liberation now through the
creation of alternative ways of being, we can gradually expand and
discover what is possible. No singular revolutionary moment is fit for
achieving the standards of a living and breathing philosophy which seeks
to realize what so many conservative minded see as impossible. The state
may wither away along with the patriarch, but new freedoms are always
around the bend, waiting to be discovered and gradually realized.