💾 Archived View for tilde.town › ~vidak › anarchist-philosophy › objectivity-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2024-08-24 at 23:53:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                           
    /\   ._    _.  ._   _  |_   o   _  _|_ 
   /--\  | |  (_|  |   (_  | |  |  _>   |_ 
                                           
      _                                    
     |_  ._   _    _    _|   _   ._ _      
     |   |   (/_  (/_  (_|  (_)  | | |

For the Universality of Anarchist Freedom

Objectivity comes in many forms. Here, I would like to convince you of

the need for the universality of just one kind: the anarchist

conception of freedom.

I have spoken with orbitalfox about this. Orbitalfox thinks that

values or attitudes are relative to individuals or cultures

themselves.

I think this is wrongheaded. We have to assert that the freedom to be

anarchist, and live in an anarchist society, must be universal, or,

objective.

I think the best way to argue this is by appeal to zoology, or,

biology. Animal behaviour was proven to be developed through an

unemphasised but absolutely critical part of Darwin's *Theory of

Evolution*. This is that not *just* Mutual Struggle (i.e. the

Spencerian distortion, which only includes this part of Darwin's

Theory*) is a factor of Natural Selection, but **also** Mutual Aid.

It is in our very biology as animals, not *just* as human beings to

exhibit this important factor of evolution. So -- being thus formed as

sentient creatures, wouldn't this also have important effects for our

powers of cognition, and also the way our social systems operate?

I think this also has a philosophical significance, beyond a mere

scientific one. What does it mean if humans are fundamentally united

in biology? It obviously excludes any form of bigotry, because all

humans are united in their biology. For example, we only have

anthropological evidence for humans confecting the social concept of

'Race' in the last 10 000 years, since the Neolithic Period.

This line of argument might not satisfy some, though. What if we

considered the question of universal morality from an Idealist point

of view? That is, *if* it was true that humans are best suited to

anarchist values, what does that mean for the 'internal perspective'

for being human? What does that mean for consciousness as a

justification to itself? What is the Logic of universalism?

Doesn't even the need to make the statement 'morality is relative'

require the universality of the concept of rationality? If the above

statement was *not* universal, and was relative, the reverse would be

true. And so there is a contradiction.

I suppose I can go further and deeper than just trickery: to defend

your position of relativism of moral values, don't you have to assert

that I am wrong? Or, are you just trying to say what I am claiming is

in fact not what I am arguing for? My point: many people take the

promotion of universal values as fascistic or totalitarian.

But I don't see how this could be so. Doesn't the concept of universal

morality depend on its content, as well as the form in which it comes?

For instance--I imagine that the objectivity of anarchist freedom

would protect itself from developing into a system of domination. It

would enumerate a principle of universal freedom to ensure that

people's associations were *only* consensual.

To health and anarchy,

~vidak.