Crisis of faith, but would rather save himself thanks...

[puke on cops]

I've been spurred by a critique of my politics, and also the fact that I hold them and why, by a friend of mine who describes himself as a contrarian objective rationalist [who happens to be a shameless capitalist-centralist]

Thing is, I appear to have got the horse before the cart on my politics- most people do I reckon, when they find some attractive ideology.
But I'm beginning to think that I'm no better than a religious nut for picking anarchist communism, via a youthful stint in punkdom, via the selection of a few tenements of faith (ooh, it worked for spain, boy, that Berkman makes a lot of sense) some material analysis for good measure, and importantly, cos he does like to bang on about this, anarchists faith in humans.

Thing is, as my friend explained, people of a faith-based ideology [religious, political] that are attacked rationally will find some rational way of worming out of having to have a crisis of faith. Thing is, we'd agree it's more morally abhorrent to cover the cracks with more cement than it is to hit the pantheon of dogma some more until only the strong pillars, the ones that have some objective rationalism to their foundation, remain. Hope my analogy works btw :P

Your thoughts? Also, since I'm going to be asking this of people of as may different political and social beliefs as possible, I'll ask you it. feel free to just point me in the direction of a wikilink

What makes a person,

what gives them rights,

how far down the line of 'we are social constructs' do you go?

and how do you weigh social cohesion with individual freedom in your/our ideal world?


Leo

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think you're being hard on yourself by saying that you've jumped into our politics on faith. I mean, obviously I don't know you, maybe you did, but just to judge from the examples you gave - it working in Spain and Berkman making sense - I wouldn't say so.

It really did work for spain, and Berkman really did (most of the time =p) make a heck of a lot of sense. Unless you've decided to just believe these things for the sake of believing them and no matter what counter, which would be having a faith in them, then I imagine you've arrived at them rationally.

I'm not an anarchist, but I don't think it's fair to say they have a non-rational faith in humans. Why was this charge made, what was it's basis? That stateless society is utopian because secretly we're all horrible savages who need to be kept in line? That's usually the argument offered, and it really is a bad one for lots of reasons. Perhaps the best is one that you yourself pointed out, it has worked historically. Ergo it must be at the very least possible.

Could you flesh out your questions with examples at all? I'll try and answer them but as they stand they're a bit abstract and vague.

And welcome to revleft. :)

-Alex

[Parker]

I am not really convinced by the "faith in humans" argument. I don't think anarchism or libertarian communism, etc., requires people to be pure or selfless. It is probably that people don't know much about anarchism and think it must be some pie-eyed utopia where we all sit around in kaftans, smoking pot and listening to folk music.

People are a mixture of good and bad (I should know, I can be a miserable bastard), but they are inherently social. (Let anyone try spending a prolonged amount of time on their own). You don't need "faith" in humans because you're not asking for divine intervention, which means you're not a religious nut either. If anything, faith in capital and the state is the biggest superstition of the lot.

I find it odd that your mate gives you a hard time. What's he scared of? Plus he hasn't given you any ground to refute his argument if people when "attacked rationally will find some rational way of worming out of having to have a crisis of faith." He will dismiss any answer you give. How "rational" is that?

When it comes to faith, it is actually more often the case that when attacked rationally, people will come up with an irrational way of avoiding having a crisis of faith.

The Anarchist FAQ is usually level headed about these things:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215

[Calmwinds]

Why don't you turn the question back on to him? It seems he might be attacking your ideas to prevent him from having a 'crisis of faith', also this term seems to be a dumb way of explaining away why someone won't listen to him.

How can you even be sure that your 'strong pillars remain', or that they are even 'strong'? This entire idea is too confused to even make sense.

This explains it away instead of explaining anything.

[A.R.Amistad]

We all start somewhere comrade

[Tribune]

The British socialist science fiction writer, Ken MacLeod, and the American socialist/anarchist muckraker, Arthur Silber, both start from the point of view of the "true knowledge" (although, to be fair, the term is only used by McCleod):

"Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if need be, other life. Therefore, life is aggression, and successful life is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time, which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to you. Might makes right, and power makes freedom. You are free to do whatever is in your power, and if you want to survive and thrive you had better do whatever is in your interests. If your interests conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against yours, everyone for theirselves. If your interests coincide with those of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We are what we eat, and we eat everything.

All that you really value, and the goodness and truth and beauty of life, have their roots in this apparently barren soil.

This is the true knowledge.

We had founded our idealism on the most nihilistic implications of science, our socialism on crass self-interest, our peace on our capacity for mutual destruction, and our liberty on determinism. We had replaced morality with convention, bravery with safety, frugality with plenty, philosophy with science, stoicism with anaesthetics and piety with immortality. The universal acid of the true knowledge had burned away a world of words, and exposed a universe of things.

Things we could use."*

Shorter this: we are and can be rather wretched to each other, not simply because we live in economic conditions which favor miserable jerks, but because our biological limitations are real.

Before continuing, neither MacLeod or Silber actually believes this "true knowledge." They don't believe it. It's not a tenet of faith. In fact, both MacLeod and Silber repeatedly argue (in books and articles) that we are capable of much more, and to make a moral judgment, much better than merely this.

But, let's assume it. A starting point. A biological assertion that life itself is raw consumption. Assume this as the "worst." The stomach growls, we eat stuff, we shit it out. We do what we want and we hurt those who get in our way.

Even with this - even assuming this - we can still create the conditions of socialism. In fact, as Silber argues in his blog on a near daily basis, assuming this - we must create the conditions of socialism.

Because the (presumed) narrow limitations of these assumed biological limitations obligate us, as life, to exceed those limitations. If we do not, we will life (eat) ourselves to death.

I don't know if this helps, but it might give you a way to take the assumption of ingrained venality and challenge it for yourself, on your terms.

* - The Cassini Division

[puke on cops]

Tribune, as much as that is one of the most beautiful artifacts of writing I've read all year, it doesn't come close to what I'm trying to get across.

I'm not having a crisis of faith, I'm having a crisis BECAUSE of faith.
Perhaps this is the last apologetic whimpers before I snuff out the candle of communism in my heart but I really, really want to be able to say in five years time that I have been objective of all and everything I once held dear. If, upon such time has passed, I decide rationally that communism is the shit and that it justifies its existence, I'd come back to it.

Yeah- I think I'm having an existentialist moment. What's worse is I'm stuck with 4 anarchists in my household, and my mate the intellectual at college/in town, so there's the 'remain objective' view out the window, surely?

[Tribune]

Tribune, as much as that is one of the most beautiful artifacts of writing I've read all year, it doesn't come close to what I'm trying to get across.

I'm not having a crisis of faith, I'm having a crisis BECAUSE of faith.
Perhaps this is the last apologetic whimpers before I snuff out the candle of communism in my heart but I really, really want to be able to say in five years time that I have been objective of all and everything I once held dear. If, upon such time has passed, I decide rationally that communism is the shit and that it justifies its existence, I'd come back to it.

Yeah- I think I'm having an existentialist moment. What's worse is I'm stuck with 4 anarchists in my household, and my mate the intellectual at college/in town, so there's the 'remain objective' view out the window, surely?

I have no reply to that, except to submit that "faith" may not be the best approach to observable reality.

A crisis (existential worst of all) is no easy moment to endure. Perhaps it's just worth having, for no other reason than you will die one day, will never wake up, and therefore ought to live the best possible life available to you.

That's how I approach my politics: I will die. No one else will die my death. No one else can die my death. But, this also means that everyone I meet shares this in common with me, being human persons as I am. Each of them will also die, utterly alone, facing the darkness that cannot be adequately named because none who dies can ever live again to communicate it.

If we all die, it follows that this life is rather worth living. And if life is worth living, for me, because I will die and this is all I get, I can make that not too large leap to understand that everyone else's life is worth living, each to her own self.

If this is true, I imagine, than we can find a way to make it so that everyone's life is as worth living as is humanly possible.

If this is the case, that we can do this - than it also follows that there any number of ways where we rather obviously aren't doing it.

There are ways to live with each other which maximize the value of each life. And there are ways to live with each other so that some have a lot of value, precisely because most others are consistently devalued.

If everyone dies, and dies permanently, then perhaps it's not unreasonable to decide that those ways which allow only a few to have the best possible life, at the expense of most everyone else, are not really all that acceptable. They are intolerable. Cruel. Hateful.

That they are, in fact, quite cruel on very specific terms, as species of cannibalism and human sacrifice - and even, deliberately so. We are degraded, sacrificed, our life and labor consumed, so that a very few can live "fully human" lives.

If this is the case - that my life and your life and most everyone who has been born's life is deliberately devalued, made less enjoyable, made less worth living - and that this life will end, having been cruelly subjugated so that few will live lives of great value and worth, well that's just not worth tolerating.

And if it's not worth tolerating, because to tolerate it is to willfully devalue this life of mine which will very soon end, and end permanently, to also willfully devalue the lives of most everyone else currently alive, I must (to have any worth, any value, any opportunity to look backward at the moment of my death and declare, if only for my dying self, "Yes, that was worth it..") fight those conditions of depraved cruelty.

That perhaps my greatest worth and value, my most enduring enjoyment of life is exactly this struggle.

Even if I lose it.

[puke on cops]

Tribune, I'm nicking that quote- I've no clue what for yet- might stick it on my facebook, if you want me to credit you I will. That's an awesome line.

I know what the objective rationalist method here is now though- to ask for what we would perceive as reform, from the assumption that socialism is dead and in gone.

[Tribune]

Tribune, I'm nicking that quote- I've no clue what for yet- might stick it on my facebook, if you want me to credit you I will. That's an awesome line.

I don't need credit, but if you feel the need, just attribute it to the anonymous handle I'm already using, namely "Tribune."

And thank you.


I know what the objective rationalist method here is now though- to ask for what we would perceive as reform, from the assumption that socialism is dead and in gone.

Perhaps we don't need to presume that socialism is "dead and gone."