#abolition of social hierarchy

[rotenotes]

Reading "Anarchist communism" @wikipedia (20131015)

Reading Anarchist communism ((accessdate=20131015)) {{Anarcho-communism sidebar|expanded=all}} Part of a series on Anarcho-communism Concepts Anarchy Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Anti-statism Proletarian internationalism Class consciousness Class struggle Classless society Common ownership Commons Commune Consensus democracy Co-operative economics Direct democracy Egalitarian…

[opstandelse]

Reading "Anarchist communism" @wikipedia (20131015)

Reading Anarchist communism ((accessdate=20131015)) {{Anarcho-communism sidebar|expanded=all}} Part of a series on Anarcho-communism Concepts Anarchy Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Anti-statism Proletarian internationalism Class consciousness Class struggle Classless society Common ownership Commons Commune Consensus democracy Co-operative economics Direct democracy Egalitarian…

[read-marx-and-lenin]

There is no magic "abolish the state" button, which is why I'm an anarchist, as "when the state has socialismed enough it will just magically poof away in a cloud of smoke" is the leninist position.

That is not the Leninist position, the Leninist position is and always has been that the state cannot disappear until the material conditions for its disappearance are achieved. The withering away of the state, first outlined by Engels, is not a magic process but one that proceeds from the abolition of class and the dissolution of the bourgeoisie.

How are you going to get rid of the bourgeoisie without a state? Are you going to simply ask them nicely to leave you alone? If you are organized and if your organization is suppressing the bourgeoisie as a class, then you have created a state, you have created an authoritarian imposition on the free organization of some section of the people. If you are not doing any of this, then the bourgeoisie who you have left unmolested will invariably come to dominate you once more.

Anarchists have always played word games to get around these simple facts. There are the practical anarchists who will admit to some amount of authority, but always with the caveat that theirs is *just* authority, *necessary* authority, and that is is the *unjust* authority that they condemn. Just authority is not the State, because the State is unjust, and so if they see an authority as just then it cannot be the State. Fair enough, you can call things by whatever names you like, but if you put these ideas in practice you basically end up with Leninism. You want to create dual power? You want to abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a democratic organ of the working class? Well so did Lenin, and now you know why the Mensheviks accused him of anarchism.

Then there are the quite impractical capital-A Anarchists, who are adamant that anarchy means anarchy and that even voluntary hierarchy and submission to democratic authority is impermissible. Whether pacifistic or militaristic, they are generally unremarkable and ineffective at their goals because they eschew most effective forms of organization as ideologically impure. Even the most advanced anarchists, the CNT in Spain and the Maknovists in Russia, were plagued by economic confusion and disorganization. Their lack of discipline led to their downfall.

If you want to read more, here are some pertinent links:

[shrimp1y]

"wrio isn't a cop hes a king"

Can someone with brains please please PLEASE talk about the disgusting portrayal of cops, crime, court proceedings, justice system and prison incarceration in genshin impact's fontaine update because I cannot SIT HERE and see people completely destroy their brain cells just so they could play a mediocre game and make some fictional men fuck in their mind

I'm deadass surprised there isn't more people talking about it??? I'm honestly so ??? It's literally presenting prison labour as a good thing. Wriothesley, the prison administrator, got rich off of making his inmates build police robots for the state AND HE'S PRAISED FOR IT. AND THEY'RE PAID IN COUPONS THAT CAN ONLY BE USED IN JAIL. HE WAS REWARDED FOR IT WITH HIS DUKE STATUS.

The fact that the fucking MC's mascot was like "oh the prisoners get one free meal a day? you're making life too good down here what if no one wants to leave :(" what in the bullshit. What in the. There's also a fighting ring in the prison, by the way, and you can bet on it with your coupons you just can't bet on both fighters.

The. This is a scene people think is hot. "But that's a bad guy!" THAT'S HOW THE NARRATIVE IS WRITTEN. THEY ARE ALWAYS THE BAD GUY IN FICTION. THAT'S HOW COPAGANDA WORKS, they make you think people in power can just beat the shit outta anyone and of course the person deserves it because they are clearly always the bad guys! And the people in power are always right! This is sarcasm btw.

Neuvillette and the magic judgement machine are literally seen as undeniable justice ordained by magic and NO ONE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS. NEUVILLETTE HIMSELF HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE'S DOING HE'S ACTIVELY FIGURING SHIT OUT AS WE SPEAK. And yet it's what sends people to The Worst Most Dangerous Super Scary Prison Ever Where There's No Laws [but 1 meal a day's great /s].

"But he feels bad!" Genshin has repeatedly chosen to highlight the pains and troubles of the oppressors [Eula] [Ei/Shogun] and there's literally never any repercussions for them aside from when they portray The Haterz clearly as villains or they turn it around and say "Well it was a misunderstanding all along! No one's to blame here!"

I'm not smart enough to go into details I'm just saying. This. needs to be talked about. I'm not telling you to stop the game bc Hyperfixations not really smth that can be controlled or whatever I get It I Got Back into the game when the first trailer dropped I drew neuvillette fanart and then everything just went downhill since then and I'm like why the fuck did I expect anything better than racist, pro cop dogshit from Mihoyo It needs to be talked about ESPECIALLY by people who still cares about it to critically. assess what the fuck you are absorbing because this shit isn't okay. This is literally paw patrol for weebs they just didn't call anyone a "cop"

PLEASE. TALK ABOUT IT.

[txttletale]

can you explain family abolition in a few words?

sure. there is no one unitary 'family abolitionist' perspective so be aware that i'm explaining this as a marxist and not as an anarchist or a radical feminist.

basically, "the family" is a social construct rather than a fixed self-evident truth. the family has been created and can be shaped, altered, or--indeed--abolished. this is evinced by the broad anthropological and historical record of radical transformations in what constitutes 'the family' (cf. clans, the extended family, the nuclear family). viewing the family as such opens it up to critique and also to the concept that it could be replaced with something better (in much the same way that, for communist and anarchist, refusing to accept the timelessness / naturalization of the bourgeois state opens up new horizons of political thought outside of engagement with electoral politics.)

among these critiques of the family are:

that it is a tool of patriarchal control over women and children by creating an economic dependence upon spouses / parents

ergo, that it enables and causes 'abuse' -- that child abuse, spousal abuse, and intimate partner violence are not abberations of 'the family' but in fact a natural consequence of its base premises re: power and control

that it serves as a site of invisiblised economic labour (e.g. housework)

that it is a tool of the capitalist (formerly the feudal) economy's reproduction of inequality via e.g. inheritance laws

that it serves as a site of normalization and reproduction of hegemonic ideology--i.e. that it is the site where heteronormativity, cisnormativity, gender roles, class positionality, & more are ingrained in children

among solutions family abolitionists propose to remedy it are:

the total dissolution of any legal privilege conferred by romantic or blood relationship in favour of total freedom for any group of people to form a household and cohabitate

the recognition of housework, the work of childrearing, & the general tasks of social reproduction as 'real' labour to be distributed fairly and not according to formal or informal (feminized) hierarchies

the economic and legal freedom of children--(i.e., allowing children unconditional access to food and shelter outside 'the family', allowing children the legal right to informed consent and self-determination)

similarly, the emancipation of women from economic dependence on their partners--both of these can only really be achieved via socialism (as marx put it, 'women in the workplace' only trade patriarchal dependence upon a husband for patriarchal dependence upon an employer)

communal caretaking of children, the sick, & the elderly

yeah. i know. this is a lot of words. its not few words. sorry. it's a complex topic innit. this is a few words For Me consideri ng that i've got a long-ass google doc open where i'm writing up a whole damn essay on this exact topic.

tldr: the family is not inevitable, it is constructed & can be replaced with something better. full economic freedom from dependence on interpersonal familial relationships for everybody now. check out cuba's 2022 family code for an idea of what this could look like as practical legislation.

[cuddlytogas]

maybe it's just the Radical Rediker talking, but there's something pointed in the way that, say, popular pirate media like Pirates of the Caribbean dilutes the pirate's freedom to "bring me that horizon" as opposed to, say, "plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power" (Bartholomew Roberts).

broadly speaking, most pirates chose the life in order to escape and revenge the hard labour, corporal punishment, overworking, and unequal pay of merchant/navy/privateer ships; or the privations of their sudden unemployment once a war was over, ignored as soon as their ability to die for the state was unneeded. yes, many were thugs, but, consciously political or not, they were responding to a particular, material reality.

the pirate's desired freedom was from the effects of exploitative modes of statehood and capital production. but popular media usually shifts this into a general desire for freedom: freedom to roam, freedom to love (usually merely a cross-class white, heterosexual union), or freedom from the personal pressures of social norms. it's a vague, ahistorical, post-Enlightenment, libertarian ideal rather than a response to a real social and economic situation.

to be clear, this only really applies to specifically the late golden age of piracy, in the first quarter of the 18th century. earlier generations of pirates/buccaneers often displayed nationalist/religious motives, and were lauded, tolerated, or even encouraged by the French and English states for aiding their fights against the Spanish and Portuguese. only the last gasp of age of sail pirates had a truly anti-national energy, and both figured themselves, and were figured by the imperial powers, as the enemies of all nations.

but if we are to valourise the late golden age pirate, at his best, his ideals were for true democracy, and the abolition of nation, hierarchy, and labour exploitation; not "the horizon". he was striking out in response to specific political, social, and economic oppressions, rather than a general individual restlessness, and that reality - and its similarities to our own - are important.

I dunno, I just... have a lot of thoughts about the defanging of piracy in modern media. obviously there were a lot of things bad about them, too, and the level of egalitarianism varied between individual people and ships. but again, if we're going to be valourising them anyway... there were idealists. and they weren't subtle about they wanted.

"I shan't own myself guilty of any murder", said William Fly in 1726. "Our captain and his mate used us barbarously. We poor men can't have justice done us. There is nothing said to our commanders, let them never so much abuse us, and use us like dogs. But the poor sailors --"

[hms-no-fun]

your last answer was very good, its really great to see someone actually talking about "AI" as a labour issue instead of complaining about "plagiarism" and saying we need to make copyright stronger lol. my question is completely tangential to that, but i'm really curious what you mean by making a distinction between a communist future and an anarchist future- what in your mind would be true about a communist future that would be undesirable and not true about an anarchist future? in my experience theyve always been largely equated, albeit generally with some differences mostly stemming from the differences in socialist and anarchist perspectives on the whole issue

i'm so glad you asked this question!

i tend to focus a lot on democratic socialist policies in my writing, your public option and affordable housing etc etc. i do this because they are tangible, relatable necessities whose impacts would be of incalculable benefit to the working class. but i don't see them as the end goal. for me, getting those programs in place and future proofed is step zero. barring a full scale organized revolution, this seems the most likely path forward.

step one from there is to build communism. this means more than unions, more than socialized healthcare, more than high taxes. this means seizing corporate firms and nationalizing them. this means worker ownership of and democratic participation in those firms. and it means a million other things.

if you asked me the right way to build communism, i'd have a few shrugged suggestions and then say "i don't know." the question of how to build communism will be answered in the doing. mistakes will be made. people will get hurt. but people are always already getting hurt, and we must remember that our task here is not to build a perfect society, but a better one.

yet this pipe dream itself is not the end goal. i think state communism is perfectly capable of falling to rot in its own ways, even in a world where there are no capitalist superpowers waging economic warfare against them. to my mind, the ultimate goal of state communism should be to make itself redundant. this is almost certainly beyond our lifetime in even the rosiest of scenarios. we're talking generations of very deliberate work. but let's say we've arrived at the equitable future. a truly classless, borderless world of the proletariat may yet have little need for states. i struggle to imagine such a world without the abolition of hierarchical organizations as we know them, because hierarchies manufacture class dynamics.

what i imagine then is a form of anarchism in which governing bodies emerge out of necessity or ingenuity, serve their function, then dissolve as a matter of course to avoid the re-entrenchment of imbalanced power dynamics. don't ask me to elaborate further on the practicalities of that future, because i honestly haven't got an answer for you. anarchism is a beautiful hypothesis which cannot be proved in a lab.

i see socialism, communism, and anarchism not as competing ideologies but stages along a spectrum of societal development. the conflict between these schools of thought seems to emerge out of disagreements over which one we should build first, which one we should never build, and the order in which one may then build up to another. you don't have to agree with me on that assessment, but from where i'm sitting in the 21st century united states, socialism -> communism -> anarchism makes the most sense. you can't dismantle the state without controlling the state, and you don't truly control the state until you control the means of production, and seizing the means would probably be a hell of a lot easier under a democratic socialist state.

that's the theory, anyway! i am not particularly dogmatic about this stuff because i can imagine plenty of scenarios where we hopskip socialism or jump a curb somewhere into anarchism. and of course it's not gonna be the same order, the same process, the same logic in every country, nor will it happen all at once. we're most likely talking about a project of centuries, even as i believe in the transformative immediacy of revolution. hence my focus on democratic socialist policies, whose necessity are paramount regardless of your political disposition or prescribed solution to the problems of the world today. i'm sick of debating the hypotheticals of a system we are not even remotely close to activating in the real world, i want to put my energy towards a project that feels genuinely achievable and that would immediately change a lot of lives for the better overnight. beyond that, i simply try to emphasize that this is one step to take on a long path, because i think it's healthier to take the long view. shrug!

[gatheringbones]

[“Police seem to have three reasons for arresting victims of gender-based violence: for the victims’ own good; to compel participation in prosecution; and because they see these victims as perpetrators. In the context of intimate partner violence, police sometimes justify making arrests by claiming that arrest will be helpful, forcing victims to face the seriousness of the violence and encouraging them to seek services. Similarly, law enforcement frequently cites rescue when arresting victims of trafficking. As Ohio attorney general Dave Yost explained, “Arresting the people who are the victims of human trafficking sounds harsh, but the complicated reality is that this often is the best way that law enforcement can help.” Deputy police chief Marc Garth-Green told the Seattle City Council that victims of trafficking might need to be arrested “to disrupt the cycle of violence and abuse. . . . For people trafficked in prostitution, jail can be a safer place than out on the street.”

Law enforcement officers use arrest— sometimes repeatedly—to “build trust” with trafficking victims. As one law enforcement officer explained, “You’ve got to take that girl away from that pimp for a long enough time that she trusts you, and that’s not going to happen in 24 hours or 36 hours.” Police believe that arrest prompts victims of commercial sexual exploitation to admit to their victimization, enabling them to access the services and supports they need to escape their traffickers. In some “prostitution diversion” programs, which are specifically designed to prevent people from being prosecuted for sex work–related offenses, police are not permitted to offer trafficking victims and others engaged in sex work services without first making an arrest. In other programs the existence of the program creates an incentive to arrest; police use arrests to bring people to central locations that offer both on-site booking and links to services. Law enforcement’s belief that such programs will “save” victims of trafficking from the streets is directly linked to increased policing to fill those programs.

Rescue may also be a function of white supremacy. As social science professor Kamala Kempdaoo has argued, white supremacy can be manifested in a desire to help racially marginalized people, which maintains the position and power of whiteness within racial hierarchies. Some in law enforcement recognize that arresting trafficking victims is a counterintuitive way to provide assistance. As sergeant Kathy Lacey of the Anchorage Police Department has explained, law enforcement’s intervention options are limited: “We don’t want to punish them. We want to remove them from that situation, and the tools that we have to remove them from that situation are to arrest them and to remove them from that trafficker.” Arrest is often described as a minor inconvenience in the service of a larger goal and harmless so long as the person is not convicted and left with a criminal record. What that perspective ignores, however, is the harm caused by arrest. Whatever good intentions law enforcement might have don’t keep people who are arrested from pushing back against the coercion implicit in the requirement that they comply with services or face incarceration. This vision of arrest as helpful, as rescue, is particularly ironic given how often victims of gender-based violence report abuse by law enforcement officers.”]

leigh goodmark, from imperfect victims: criminalized survivors and the promises of abolition feminism, 2023

[argyrocratie]

"The fear of horizontalism, autonomy, the deregulation of everyday life, the abolition of private property without subterfuge, is inherent to a world whose functioning is based on some being above and others below. It is thereby logical that any attempt to alter this state of affairs be considered a threat.

In fact, in all of the examples I have just mentioned, from Plato to Bentham and from these to the most conservative factions of the French Revolution, the criticism of anarchy and its supposed propagators is not based so much on the fear of absolute freedom as on in the fear of egalitarianism that entails the absence of formal authority.

For those cited, anarchy would suppose an inadmissible seismic equalising that would undermine the social hierarchy, put an end to the “natural” superiority of some individuals over others and lead us to chaos. The anarchist, obviously, could not be more unattractive."

-Ruymán Rodríguez, "Anarchist Identity" (2018)

[sophie-frm-mars]

trans rights

The basic claim of trans rights isn't that trans people exist (a non-negotiable human fact) but that trans people deserve everything available to cis people, in the same way that the original feminist claim was not that women exist but rather that they are equally as human as men.

The shift in material terms (what opportunities we have, how we are treated and so on) as well as societal understanding of us is that we are not implicitly sexual objects, the same as the original feminist push for change.

Along the way to explaining this to people we have to divorce the notions of sexuality and gender, which many cis people still do not understand as distinct, but although they are divorced, sexuality and gender are not completely alienated from one another. Gender and sexuality are friends with benefits.

Trans people put a lot of labour into their gender.

(Please read Wages for transition if you haven't)

The labour that trans people put into their gender is quite visible in ways that the labour that cis people put into their gender is not. For many cis people this creates an implicit impression that trans people by existing are claiming that their gender is more valuable than cis people's. This exists quite comfortably in a society that never talks about trans people unless it acknowledges their existence as sex workers or fetish objects, but not in a society that would treat trans people as equally human. Therefore a push for social and legal equality for trans people is, in the minds of those cis people, a push for a society in which it is broadly accepted that some people's gender is more valuable.

However, we already live in a society where it is broadly accepted that some people have more valuable gender than others. "Hot" people, many of whom put a significant amount of labour into their gender, are also treated as having more valuable genders than others. I'd like to draw attention to the obvious similarity between transmisogynistic rhetoric and ideology and the rhetoric and ideology of incels. Incels believe in a sexual hierarchy which essentially treats "more sex" as better and reflexively indicative of a more valuable person, rather than a uniquely communicated and negotiated consensual connection between two or more people.

(We could also draw a parallel between people's reaction to nonbinary people and people's reactions to vegans, i.e. "so you think you're better than me?")

Under patriarchy, women are treated as responsible for the reproduction of society, which is often essentialised as an inherent (biological) quality of women. Trans women, assumed by people who are not trans women to not be burdened with a disproportionate share of reproductive labour, are treated by transmisogynists as getting to enjoy all the aspects of being a woman (implicitly under patriarchy being a woman is doing more gender than being a man) without paying the price for being a woman.

When we say that we are gender abolitionists we simply mean that we are feminists, and that we wish to abolish societal hierarchies based on gender and allow people to self-determine and fully control their own gender without it having implications on their social status. Naturally the relations between genders are not abolished unless they are hierarchical because gender is frequently constructed through gendered relations. This, again, is why sexuality and gender remain close despite the fallout from their earlier codependent relationship. We should, in fact, want a billion squillion kajillion genders because allowing people to treat gender as a multifaceted social performance instead of an inherent characteristic rigidly attached to sex, we support implicitly the abolition of cisheteropatriarchy.

[trans-axolotl]

I went to the anarchist/abolitionist healthcare conference this weekend, and it was really a beautiful experience that I don't even have words for. Being able to share resources, knowledge, dreams, and joy together with other people invested in this work was so special, and I gained a ton of hope by seeing the many ways that other people are actively engaged in resisting these fucked up systems and building care into our communities. I gave a presentation about psych abolition, talked about resistance within the psych ward, and got a standing ovation from a room filled with 50 people, many of whom were mental health professionals looking to build solidarity. I legitimately almost cried because of being to have that experience with my mad comrades. I met so many beautiful crazy people who intimately understand what it means to survive as a mad person, and just gained so much knowledge from people actively putting their abolitionist values into practice. I want to share a few of my favorite resources that I became aware of at this conference, and I'll make another post later with some of my key takeaways.

Mutual Aid Self/Social Therapy: This is a support framework designed by one of my friends that provides an intentional structure for providing therapetuic support within communities, especially organizing communities where there's a lot of burnout. It offers so many resources for skills training to allow anyone, whether you have a background in emotional support or not, to set this up within your community. The framework is purposefully not hierarchial or transactional, and allows for actually addressing people's material conditions as well as providing space for emotional processing.

Of Unsound Mind: Incredible archive and research on psychiatric history. Mostly focused around America, but also has some info on other countries. The author of the website will be coming out with a book later this year, which I think is mostly going to be about the Trieste, Basaglia, and that history of psych resistance in Italy.

Power makes us Sick: Collective that focuses on autonomous healthcare and emotional support, especially in terms of autonomous trans healthcare. Has some fabulous zines and resources.

A Corpse among Corpses: Incredible documentary about asylum graveyards in the Midwest and the trade of graverobbing for experimentation in medical schools, and how this connects to settler colonialism, slavery, eugenics, and modern gentrification. Really do want to emphasize a trigger warning for genocide, eugenics, medical violence, self harm, antiblack racism, instituionalization, and lots of discussion of death. I talked a lot with the filmmakers, and really appreciated their care and intent in making this film as a way of bearing witness rather than exploiting atrocity in the name of art, but do want to be very clear that this film is incredibly heavy to watch and might be something worth doing with other people. It was deeply impactful for me, and made me tear up many times.

The Living Museum: Through transforming the old Creedmoor hospital grounds into a musuem and workspace for current patients to showcase their art, this space celebrates psychiatric resistance, transformation, struggle, and joy. I really want to go visit and share in that space, as it seems just so fucking cool. It seems like you might need to contact directly to schedule a visit.

Cahoots Crisis Response Model: This is one model for crisi intervention teams that respond instead of police. They are not perfect, still have some enagement with police, but are an interesting example of how to try to implement these types of programs. Since theyv'e been around for 25 years, they have a lot of knoweldeg and could be a good first group to reach out to if you're trying to create this in your community.

Overall this whole weekend was a beautiful example of how to put our values into practice, and really just wanted to share these projects with you all!

[transmutationisms]

hi, i was reading ur other posts and got from it that u might be a professor? i was wondering what it is you studied & ur thoughts on academia & entering it.

i'm a doctoral candidate in history so i can't speak much to stem fields and i haven't yet had to properly face the academic job market. you might be interested in some of the posts in my tagged/academia

academic work occupies a slightly odd place in a lot of public discourse because on the one hand there are many people who configure it on ideal terms as a force of enlightenment, social improvement, and self-actualisation for both student and professor. on the other hand there are those within academia (or, often, recently exiled from it) who went in with those sorts of high-minded expectations, had their dreams shattered, and now portray academic labour as uniquely or excessively exploited, monetised, and exhausting. in regards to the first group i would respond that academics work for institutions that exist to enforce hegemonic power structures; to uphold class hierarchies and the illusion of meritocratic social mobility; and to profit from the restriction of access to knowledge and debate. in regards to the second group i would say that academics are exploited by the same labour relations as any other workers in a capitalist system; that we, like all other workers, should be agitating for liberation not just for ourselves; and that this means the abolition of the university as the institution that we now know, as well as the class barriers it erects and enforces.

i can't really tell anyone whether they should go into academia or not. certainly there are things i like about it: for one, i do feel a sense that i 'get' to spend a lot of my working time reading and writing about things that i find genuinely interesting and that i think are valuable to share and study. the material benefits of having a white-collar / desk job are also real.

however, it is also true that academic jobs involve affiliations with institutions that are by nature capitalist, colonialist, exclusionary & élitist; and that the degree of security and financial stability you get from these jobs will vary widely between fields and positions (the vast majority of people who earn a phd will never become tenured professors). teaching and research are really two different jobs often bundled into one, and each presenting their own challenges. many of the things that suck about academia suck about work in general: interpersonal abuse is rife in academia and both created and enabled by its hierarchical nature and reliance on networking; it's virtually impossible to get any accommodations if you are disabled; unis are hostile to marginalised people and groups both internally and externally; you may not like your research, or even find what you do all day to be pointless, useless, or meaningless; if you have any kind of genuinely communist commitments then these will always and inherently be at odds with the institution you now rely on to survive, and that conflict continually stymies the production of radical and revolutionary theory and scholarship.

ultimately academic jobs are jobs, with all of the exploitation and baggage that entails. i think there are people who have produced, or are producing, work that is genuinely valuable, insightful, incisive, and so forth, from within the university. however, that's not what the institution is there for, it's something you have to constantly fight for and for which you may very well be professionally punished, and you should never let anyone tell you the university is the only path, or even a cooperative or altruistic path, toward doing such work, if that's what you want to do.

[fatehbaz]

[T]he political philosophy underlying Westphalian, modern sovereignty [...], foundations of the modern state, [...] [was at least partially formed] in relation to plantations. [...] [P]lantations [are] [...] laboratories to bring together environmental and labor dimensions [...], through racialized and coerced labor. [...] [T]he planters and managers who engineered the ordering and disciplining of these [...] [ecological] worlds also sustained [...] [p]lantations [by] [...] disciplining (and policing the boundaries of) humans and “nature” [...]. The durability and extensibility of plantations, as the central locus of antiblack violence and death, have been tracked most especially in the contemporary United States’ prison archipelago and segregated urban areas [...], [including] “skewed life chances, limited access to health [...], premature death, incarceration [...]”. [...]

Relations of dependence between planters and their laborers, sustained by a moral tie that indefinitely indebts the laborers to their master, are the main mechanisms reproducing the plantation system long after the abolition of slavery, and even after the cessation of monocrop cultivation.

The estate hierarchy survives in post-plantation subjectivities, being a major blueprint of socialization into work for generations and up to the present. [...] [Contemporary labor still involves] the policing of [...] activities, mobility and access to citizenship [...].

---

[There is] persistence - until the 1970s in most Caribbean and Indian-Ocean plantation societies, and even until today in Indian tea plantations [...] - of a system of remuneration based on subsistence wages [...]. Plantations have been viewed as displaying sovereign-like features of control and violence monopoly over land and subjects, through force as much as ideology [...]. [W]itness the plethora of references to “plantocracies” [...] ([...] sometimes re-christened “saccharocracies” in the Cuban and wider Caribbean context [...] [or] “sovereign sugar” in Hawai’i). [...]

[T]race the genealogy of contemporary sovereign institutions of terror, discipline and segregation starting from early modern plantation systems - just as genealogies of labor management and the broader organization of production [...] have been traced [...] linking different features of plantations to later economic enterprises, such as factories [...] or diamond mines [...] [,] chartered companies, free ports, dependencies, trusteeships - understood as "quasi-sovereign" forms [...].

---

[I]n fact, the relationships and arrangements obtaining in the space of the plantation may be analogous to, mirrors or pre-figurations of, or substitutes for the power and grip of the modern state as the locus of legitimate sovereignty. [...] [T]he paternalistic and violent relations obtaining in the heyday of different plantations (in the United States and Brazil [...]) appear as the building block and the mirror of national-imperial sovereignties. [...]

[I]n the eighteenth-century [United States] context [...], the founding fathers of the nascent liberal democracy were at the same time prominent planters [...]. Planters’ preoccupations with their reputation, as a mirror of their overseers’ alleged skills and moral virtue, can thus be read as a metonymy or index of their alleged qualities as state leaders. Across public and private management, paternalism in this context appears as a core feature of statehood [...]. Similarly, [...] in the nineteenth century plantations were the foundation of the newly independent Brazilian empire. [...] [I]n the case of Hawai’i [...], the mid-nineteenth-century institution of fee-title property and contract labor, facilitated by the concomitant establishment of common-law courts (later administered by the planter elite), paved the way to the establishment of sugar plantations on the archipelago [...].

---

[T]he control of movement, foundational to modern sovereign claims, has in the plantation one of its original experimental grounds: [...] the demand for plantation labor in the wake of slavery abolition in the British colonies (1834) occasion[ed] the birth of the indenture system as the origin of sovereign control on mobility, pointing to the colonial genealogy of the modern state [...].

The regulation of slaves’ mobility also represented a laboratory for the generalization of [refugee, immigrant, labor] migration regulation in subsequent epochs [up to and including today] [...] [subjugating] generally racialized and criminalized subjects [...]. [P]lantations appear as a sovereign-making machine, a workshop in (or against) which tools of both domination and resistance are forged [...].

---

All text above by: Irene Peano, Marta Macedo, and Colette Le Petitcorps. "Introduction: Viewing Plantations at the Intersection of Political Ecologies and Multiple Space-Times". Global Plantations in the Modern World: Sovereignties, Ecologies, Afterlives (edited by Petitcrops, Macedo, and Peano). Published 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for criticism, teaching, commentary purposes.]

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?

The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.

However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and doomed to failure. To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity, uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality. More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy, see section B.1 — “Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?”).

That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes) liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that “the great solidarity that existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic] own strength and not depending upon leadership… . The organisations must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a mass, but free individuals” [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 67f]

As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: “the centralist system is all very well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one thing — the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all.” [quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 33]

The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work. Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the street. As Bob Black puts it, ”[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life.” [“The Libertarian as Conservative,” The Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 147–8]

This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and society, they can ensure the full development of their individual capacities.

With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly see the end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people existing to make ends meet and being used to increase the wealth and power of the few as under capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see (to quote Kropotkin) “the well-being of all” and it is “high time for the worker to assert his [or her] right to the common inheritance, and to enter into possession of it.” [The Conquest of Bread, p. 35 and p. 44] For only taking possession of the means of life (workplaces, housing, the land, etc.) can ensure “liberty and justice, for liberty and justice are not decreed but are the result of economic independence. They spring from the fact that the individual is able to live without depending on a master, and to enjoy … the product of his [or her] toil.” [Ricardo Flores Magon, Land and Liberty, p. 62] Therefore liberty requires the abolition of capitalist private property rights in favour of “use rights.” (see section B.3 for more details). Ironically, the “abolition of property will free the people from homelessness and nonpossession.” [Max Baginski, “Without Government,” Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth, p. 11] Thus anarchism promises “both requisites of happiness — liberty and wealth.” In anarchy, “mankind will live in freedom and in comfort.” [Benjamin Tucker, Why I am an Anarchist, p. 135 and p. 136]

Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of people enslaved by hierarchy.

Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists “maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] This is because ”[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the ‘glory of command’ is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion.” [For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95]

[literatureaesthetic]

the second sex ; simone de beauvoir | part one

‘the second sex’ is a treatise on female autonomy. widely regarded as the blueprint for the second wave of feminism, this 900-page body of theory remains one of the most influential texts for women all over the globe. its impact is infinite, and beauvoir’s theory is masterfully cogent. 

there’s a lot in here to reflect on and absorb. i’ve been tackling this absolute brick of a book by consuming 10 pages a day and allowing myself to really ruminate and sit with what beauvoir is putting out there. taking this book in small increments was definitely the way to go

simone de beauvoir begins by grappling with the question, ‘what is a woman?’ - an impossible question. woman is an ideal. a social reality and confinement the man constructs that pitches women in opposition to him as “the other”. womanhood is the condition in which a woman finds herself confirming a regulated hierarchy. however, beauvoir begins by answering this question through the biological. woman is a ‘womb, an ovary’. man reduces women to nature; they are mothers and reproductive catalysts. like the spider, she castrates and cannibalises; she consumes and eats men. beauvoir deconstructs the biological and the ways in which man has attributed inferiority to the natural biological difference between sexes.

biology, however, is not the foundation for womanhood. although it informs feminine existence, it isn’t the basis of gendered alterity and power disparity. beauvoir acknowledges biological subjugation while simultaneously stating that it is not reason enough for why women are the Other.

the question of ‘what is a woman?’ morphs into ‘what has humanity made of the human female?’ we must examine woman as a complete body, not in parts.

the concept of woman is examined from various schools of thought. from psychoanalysis - which is quickly proven insufficient due to freud’s misogynistic and male-oriented examination of sexual development, which is then generalised to women - to historical materialism and the role that economic value plays in female existence. beauvoir discusses engels - though classism is deeply connected to the disparity between sexes, it is not the origin of patriarchal oppression. female subordination pre-exists class divides. where the proletariat desires to erase class divisions, women do not want to be erased. we simply want to be registered in all forms. although the abolition of private property and class divisions is desirable, it will not ensure female liberation. and so, engels and marxism fail women.

this leads to a deconstruction of human history and the ways in which women were sacrificed on man’s journey for fulfilment and nourishment. as man went to hunt and build tools, women were frequently resigned to motherhood. as man conquer the world, women are left to watch from the sidelines. by dominating nature, man triumphs over woman. women become possessions like land. he is order and accomplishment; she is mystery and chaos.

as the socio-political landscape alters, the female condition continues to deteriorate. women face extreme abuse within the workforce, all for minuscule pay (and gender wage gaps DO still exist). this worsens with religion. simone de beauvoir delves into an array of theological beliefs - christianity, islam, and judaism being central focuses - and highlights the ways that each religion fails women. she also accounts for various cultural practises across the globe (from india to the mediterranean). this is very much a body of text that registers various different cultures and the nuances of each, respectively. i wish it reflected more on the nuances of non-white women’s existence within the western world, however. 

i’ll end today’s overview with the most impactful line from this section for me - ‘women’s entire history has been written by men’. the problem of women has always been the problem of men. ‘it is not women’s inferiority that has determined their historical insignificance: it is their historical insignificance that has doomed them to inferiority’.

with man lies the onus for female suffering.

[txttletale]

Supporting family abolition is great, but it seems weird to see an ML pushing it? Like, Lenin's changes to marriage were cool, but it seems like you're in favour of the full Marx+Engels position and that seems inconsistent.

"I support abolishing all these hierarchies... except for the biggest one most capable of controlling your life. That one I support whole-heartedly." just seems like a bizarre position to take?

leaving aside that 'the full marx + engels position' v. much endorses the DoTP -- the seeming contradiction vanishes once you realize that as a marxist-leninist i don't oppose or endorse abstract concepts like 'hierarchies' or 'power'. the exercise of control over children and women for the purpose of capitalist property management and social reproduction (the family) is bad--the exercise of control over the bourgeoise class for the purpose of seizing and maintaining control of the means of production (the revolution and its continuation in the form of the dotp) are good. 'authority' as an abstract concept has no valence whatsoever to me--the question that matters is 'whose authority, over whom, to do what?'