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

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

      ┌─┐┌─┐┬  ┌─┐                
      └─┐├┤ │  ├┤                 
      └─┘└─┘┴─┘└                  
  ┬┌┐┌┌┬┐┬─┐┌─┐┌┬┐┬ ┬┌─┐┌┬┐┬┌─┐┌┐┌
  ││││ │ ├┬┘│ │ │││ ││   │ ││ ││││
  ┴┘└┘ ┴ ┴└─└─┘─┴┘└─┘└─┘ ┴ ┴└─┘┘└┘

Self Introduction

2021-10-08

Hello there! I am Vidak. I am from Australia.

I would regard myself as an anarchist without adjectives. I have been

an organiser for some time now. I am the secretary of my

anarcho-syndicalist union here, but I would say I am more 'black' than

'red': I prioritise community building and organising over workplace

activities; mainly because I cannot seem to stay in a workplace for

very long, due to my mental health.

Anarchism was something I arrived at after being a Marxist for many

years. I find something meditative and repose-like about the philosophy

of anarchy. It informs my interpersonal relationships and behaviours

very deeply, and I am always thinking about ways to rid my and my

community of coercion.

The practical aspects of anarchism are probably its strongest

virtue. When I studied Marxism, I found many conceptions of its Method

to be riddled with anxieties about how the theoretical content of The

Party would be able to stay relevant and salient in 'guiding' the masses

to conquer Capitalism and the State.

I have never been a Trotskyist, but I remember when I first began acting

on my anti-capitalist politics, I was baffled to hear so many

Trotskyists placing so much emphasis on the 'right theory' over

practice, as if practical matters are blind, and book-learning somehow

confers greater wisdom.

By contrast, I do not see this contradiction replicated in anarchism.

Since there is no Party, there is no need for a guiding-light to map

onto the will of the great masses of people; to make sure they don't

'make a mistake'.

I am a very future-orientated organiser. I am not particularly

interested in replicating the events of the past.

The discussion above about theory and practice has given me some time to

think. In the Western Enlightenment tradition, it is normally taken that

there are passive and active modes of relating to objective reality.

Passivity maps onto theoretical thinking, otherwise known as

Contemplation, in Kantian jargon. Activity is the domain of the

practical.

What if we decided to obliterate this distinction? What if both thinking

and willing are always active already? The Kantian tradition says

thought cannot be practical because there are limits to Reason--and

using too much Theory leads to contradictions.

Has not this happened in the case of Marxism? Normally, we would regard

theory as passive, and self-reflective, and not extending one's will

into objective reality. Practical activity, on the other hand, is

nothing but reality-changing behaviour. This connection between 'active'

and reality-changing-behaviour, is not observed to the exclusion of all

other cogitations and understandings about the compatibility of human

agency with the external world.

I am closer to Hegel than Fichte on this question of freedom and the

preparation we should be making for its flourishing: I prefer to imagine

a deep web of mediated (key concept) thoughts and practical acts as the

sum total of concrete existence. Whereas Fichte would dissolve the

external world into humanity's own Ego or mindset.

To health and anarchy,

~vidak.