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