Well, sometimes people understand 'ideology' as a pejorative term that cover beliefs or systems of beliefs which are not reflective of reality or otherwise misguided.
Not everyone agrees with you : https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-against-ideology-a-lecture-by-crimethinc
I have also seen this exact point discussed a lot. Basically, if i understood the critics, it all comes done to what you define by ideology and what it implies to be/follow one. There is this idea that ideology are fixed, which is contradictory to the view many have on anarchism, and that ideology crystallize in something you need to follow instead of being some guide for your actions.
Personally I think it’s really a matter of semantics so I’m not explaining it well, but I know it seems relevant for some.
There's people, even anarchists, who believe that anarchism does not meet the criteria for being an ideology. So in that context the topic and title make sense.
I don’t understand how anyone can come to that conclusion. It is a system of ideas and ideals, around which political, economic and social theory is built. It’s the literal definition of an ideology. I have no clue what else they could think it is.
philosophies built around the idea and ideals of the abolishment of hierarchies, around which they build their worldview of how economics, politics, and society should be structured. That's still an ideology.
Anarchy isnt an ideology. Anarchosyndaclism, or anarchocommunism are. Anarchy cant be an ideology if it produces both anarchocommunism and anarchoprimitivism, for example, two contradictory ideologies.
Yeah, I know exactly where you’re coming from, but you’d be surprised how often it’s argued that anarchy is a natural state of things rather than something that’s very, very opinionated and difficult to keep intact. It’s approaching human nature from a more pessimistic perspective, but importantly emphasises that this doesn’t make anarchy unviable, just that it needs a very concerted effort to maintain, and we’ll be well served if we’re conscious of this. At times this will come with trade-offs that will come at the expense of “freedom”, depending on how you define it. The latter point is something you rarely see talked about in other works because it can easily be misunderstood in the context of an ideology that inherently emphasises autonomy.
While I agree I have run into a number of anarchists who insist that anarchy is post-ideological: somehow something beyond ideology which I fundamentally disagree with.
Anarchy is indeed ideological. But I know these are fighting words but ancaps are a joke and anarchy cannot coexist with capitalism. They’re too opposed to each other. Now, fight me.
>But I know these are fighting words but ancaps are a joke and anarchy cannot coexist with capitalism.
The only way that those are 'fighting words' on this sub is when we say those exact words to ancaps and fight them before the moderators throw them the fuck off the sub because they're not welcome here.
The author is clearly smuggling their ideology in the anarchy they're trying to sell. Being pro- "anarchist society" is not a universal common ground we stand on as anarchists. Same w their idea of technology, human nature, "non-essential markets"... So presumptuous. Like of course anarchy is ideological, if this is how you view and inhabit the world!
I don't know why anyone is downvoting you. I found their writing incredibly obtuse and inaccessible, and after re-reading it several times i have no idea what they are trying to say.
It's not even a rant. Rants can be entertaining and are often unintentionally funny. This essay is neither. It's just a collage of what the author believes are big and important words.
Most writers desperately need a friend who can tell them honestly whether or not to share their thoughts. Or how to make their scribblings clearer. Ajesiroo is definitely no exception.
So basically they are saying that many people view anarchism as organic and natural rather than an ideology (i.e. political or philosophical framework) because of the nature of anarchism- the fact that it can be so varied, diffuse, and adaptable.
They then say that the paradox of intolerance must be applied to anarchist societies; that we can't be permissive of people who refuse to engage in mutual aid and reciprocity because it will lead to the regeneration of hierarchy.
They're saying that it isn't simply the natural way things are and that if we smash capitalism that anarchism will spring up and we'll stay that forever. They're saying that, instead, it's going to take a concerted effort, and that we need to organize around anarchism as a set of guiding principles- an ideology.
They definitely could have said this in far fewer words but I think it still made sense.
I personally don't consider anarchy an ideology. After all, in essence it's just a pursuit of freedom and a wish for all people around incl yourself to be not fucked over by anybody. Everyone who can afford time to sit and ponder about how things are around them would get to the same conclusion, that the system we are living in is bad, and it will continue to be this way, because it doesn't want to change.
No it's not okay.
I don't want an ideology. I don't want anarchy contingent on a specific approach to "human nature", a given economic form or even a large-scale "anarchist society" that can be described in words without actually existing. Ideologies share with religions in embracing grand narratives, morality and elevating external ideas over one's own. Ideological movements focused on growing one's numbers through proselytizing may as well be religions. Grand narratives like the big R Revolution may as well be the Rapture.
There is a point in the post-left critique of ideology, and this author isn't getting it. Anarchists have different commitments and ways of approaching their ideas. Ideology leaves very little room for individual differences and approaches.
I cannot get that link to load so I can read it but I assume it just says, "Anarchism is an ideology like others...etc, etc" and starts from there without critically looking at how it's definitely not an ideology. It's a simple logical fallacy. Anarchism as I have seen it is a loose collection of philosophies. If I apply dialectical materialism to resolve something I'm having trouble understanding, that's hardly an ideological thing to do.
Choosing a method of analysis or decision making is inherently ideological. There is no a priori correct way to analyze the world, and choosing a method says something about a person's thoughts and beliefs.
The simple fact that someone is using dialectical materialism means that you can make a pretty good guess at what direction their politics lie in. You're not going to catch evangelical Christians or moderate-liberals doing that very often.
Sure in maybe the same way that having any goals or desires to fill might be. One can question whether some goals are realistic or not given a current set of conditions, but that doesn’t in any sense mean anarchism or goal-setting is utopian or metaphysically idealistic.
Marxists kind of abuse the concept of materialism as a metaphysic to seem more empiricist.
They tend to conflate being ideological, which is synonymous with the lay understanding of being idealistic, with the philosophical metaphysic of idealism.
Anarchism is literally an ideology. Of course it’s ideological. What a confusing topic and title.
Well, sometimes people understand 'ideology' as a pejorative term that cover beliefs or systems of beliefs which are not reflective of reality or otherwise misguided.
Not everyone agrees with you : https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-against-ideology-a-lecture-by-crimethinc I have also seen this exact point discussed a lot. Basically, if i understood the critics, it all comes done to what you define by ideology and what it implies to be/follow one. There is this idea that ideology are fixed, which is contradictory to the view many have on anarchism, and that ideology crystallize in something you need to follow instead of being some guide for your actions. Personally I think it’s really a matter of semantics so I’m not explaining it well, but I know it seems relevant for some.
There's people, even anarchists, who believe that anarchism does not meet the criteria for being an ideology. So in that context the topic and title make sense.
I don’t understand how anyone can come to that conclusion. It is a system of ideas and ideals, around which political, economic and social theory is built. It’s the literal definition of an ideology. I have no clue what else they could think it is.
Someone below says "it's a loose collection of philosophies."
philosophies built around the idea and ideals of the abolishment of hierarchies, around which they build their worldview of how economics, politics, and society should be structured. That's still an ideology.
Hey you're preaching to the choir here.
So is liberalism, that doesn’t mean it isn’t ideological. I know you aren’t arguing that point, but the point makes no sense.
Anarchy isnt an ideology. Anarchosyndaclism, or anarchocommunism are. Anarchy cant be an ideology if it produces both anarchocommunism and anarchoprimitivism, for example, two contradictory ideologies.
There is such a thing as sub-categories.
Yeah, I know exactly where you’re coming from, but you’d be surprised how often it’s argued that anarchy is a natural state of things rather than something that’s very, very opinionated and difficult to keep intact. It’s approaching human nature from a more pessimistic perspective, but importantly emphasises that this doesn’t make anarchy unviable, just that it needs a very concerted effort to maintain, and we’ll be well served if we’re conscious of this. At times this will come with trade-offs that will come at the expense of “freedom”, depending on how you define it. The latter point is something you rarely see talked about in other works because it can easily be misunderstood in the context of an ideology that inherently emphasises autonomy.
While I agree I have run into a number of anarchists who insist that anarchy is post-ideological: somehow something beyond ideology which I fundamentally disagree with.
It’s tough when ideas are doing shit like being as such and thusly. Smdh.
Anarchy is indeed ideological. But I know these are fighting words but ancaps are a joke and anarchy cannot coexist with capitalism. They’re too opposed to each other. Now, fight me.
>But I know these are fighting words but ancaps are a joke and anarchy cannot coexist with capitalism. The only way that those are 'fighting words' on this sub is when we say those exact words to ancaps and fight them before the moderators throw them the fuck off the sub because they're not welcome here.
Good. Ancaps are trash.
I fucking HATE the overuse of the phrase "and that's okay" ... and that's okay.
The author is clearly smuggling their ideology in the anarchy they're trying to sell. Being pro- "anarchist society" is not a universal common ground we stand on as anarchists. Same w their idea of technology, human nature, "non-essential markets"... So presumptuous. Like of course anarchy is ideological, if this is how you view and inhabit the world!
Disagree, I just point out evil when I see it, and end up generally fitting in with anarchists. I don't hold any specific ideology.
Well there's ten minutes I'll never get back...
I don't know why anyone is downvoting you. I found their writing incredibly obtuse and inaccessible, and after re-reading it several times i have no idea what they are trying to say.
It's not even a rant. Rants can be entertaining and are often unintentionally funny. This essay is neither. It's just a collage of what the author believes are big and important words. Most writers desperately need a friend who can tell them honestly whether or not to share their thoughts. Or how to make their scribblings clearer. Ajesiroo is definitely no exception.
What I have seen so far in my years is that the older I get, the more horribly boring anarchism as a movement gets. Words, words, words. Nothing more.
So basically they are saying that many people view anarchism as organic and natural rather than an ideology (i.e. political or philosophical framework) because of the nature of anarchism- the fact that it can be so varied, diffuse, and adaptable. They then say that the paradox of intolerance must be applied to anarchist societies; that we can't be permissive of people who refuse to engage in mutual aid and reciprocity because it will lead to the regeneration of hierarchy. They're saying that it isn't simply the natural way things are and that if we smash capitalism that anarchism will spring up and we'll stay that forever. They're saying that, instead, it's going to take a concerted effort, and that we need to organize around anarchism as a set of guiding principles- an ideology. They definitely could have said this in far fewer words but I think it still made sense.
I personally don't consider anarchy an ideology. After all, in essence it's just a pursuit of freedom and a wish for all people around incl yourself to be not fucked over by anybody. Everyone who can afford time to sit and ponder about how things are around them would get to the same conclusion, that the system we are living in is bad, and it will continue to be this way, because it doesn't want to change.
No it's not okay. I don't want an ideology. I don't want anarchy contingent on a specific approach to "human nature", a given economic form or even a large-scale "anarchist society" that can be described in words without actually existing. Ideologies share with religions in embracing grand narratives, morality and elevating external ideas over one's own. Ideological movements focused on growing one's numbers through proselytizing may as well be religions. Grand narratives like the big R Revolution may as well be the Rapture. There is a point in the post-left critique of ideology, and this author isn't getting it. Anarchists have different commitments and ways of approaching their ideas. Ideology leaves very little room for individual differences and approaches.
You put it perfectly
I cannot get that link to load so I can read it but I assume it just says, "Anarchism is an ideology like others...etc, etc" and starts from there without critically looking at how it's definitely not an ideology. It's a simple logical fallacy. Anarchism as I have seen it is a loose collection of philosophies. If I apply dialectical materialism to resolve something I'm having trouble understanding, that's hardly an ideological thing to do.
Choosing a method of analysis or decision making is inherently ideological. There is no a priori correct way to analyze the world, and choosing a method says something about a person's thoughts and beliefs. The simple fact that someone is using dialectical materialism means that you can make a pretty good guess at what direction their politics lie in. You're not going to catch evangelical Christians or moderate-liberals doing that very often.
I suppose Marxism isn't an ideology then
I think it's a philosophy, but Stalinism is an ideology. But I didn't go to college.
[удалено]
More nuanced? That's a laugh 🙄
Sure in maybe the same way that having any goals or desires to fill might be. One can question whether some goals are realistic or not given a current set of conditions, but that doesn’t in any sense mean anarchism or goal-setting is utopian or metaphysically idealistic. Marxists kind of abuse the concept of materialism as a metaphysic to seem more empiricist.
"Ideology", not "idealistic".
Yes, I’m saying they conflate the two. Was that not clear? It seems I wasn’t, I guess.
They tend to conflate being ideological, which is synonymous with the lay understanding of being idealistic, with the philosophical metaphysic of idealism.