#praxis unity

[zapsoda]

doodle request: oppunity (Ancom x nazi)

love this ship but i cannot imagne either on e making a move

[anarchistfrogposting]

any chance you could explain your perspective on the rift between anarchists and MLs/communists/socialists/etc? i understand there's some methodological disagreements, like anarchists would never place their hope for revolution in a socialist/communist/etc political party, but i've genuinely heard self-proclaimed anarchists refer to "communists" with such disdain and it just makes me go ?????? we (anarchists) are also communists?? we ultimately want the same things - communism is a STATEless classless moneyless society. just, what's going on here??? surely this is not the best use of our time?

I used to be pretty hardcore about hating on MLs etc. in my defence, some of them can be pretty annoying, but I’m sure much the same is true of anarchists if you’re stood on the other side of the argument.

One thing that is almost certainly and provably true is that the overwhelming majority of radical leftists believe what they believe because, at their core, they think the current state of society is unjust, and want to work to build a better one.

But I also don’t think the argument that runs something like “we’re all just communists with different methods of getting to communism” holds much water. I don’t think anarchists can completely work with their ideological opponents; the belief that hierarchies are unjust and need to be dismantled is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that you need a centralised proletarian vanguard that derives its power from the representative democracy of workers councils. There has been significant and bloody conflict between both camps for a reason.

On the other hand, right now, those conflicts are petty and ridiculous when neoimperialism and neoliberalism continue their stranglehold over society and economy. I have worked and do work with many MLs/Trots/Maoists etc., and we need some serious solidarity with the left right now.

When millions struggle to meet their basic needs, when the proles are beaten and killed in the streets simply for asking for their basic rights, when the rights of minority classes are routinely and systematically infringed upon and reversed, when the whole planet is choking and dying, what does your opinion on a worker’s vanguard matter? People don’t even have their basic rights. It’s petty and useless to badmouth obvious allies in a struggle that is right on our doorstep.

[barely-coherent-anarchist]

reminder that praxis is, and i cannot stress this enough, extremely important to anti-capitalism as a movement.

sure, reading theory is important, but what's the point of reading said theory if you don't put it into practice in some way?

now, that doesn't mean that theory is useless, in fact i'd say the opposite. Theory is the basis for which IRL direct action is predicted on, but without putting said theory into practice, nothing will change.

join a union, organise in your local community, practice mutual aid, join a picket line, donate to mutual aid and strike funds if possible, spread leftist ideas however you can.

but remember that theory is nothing without praxis, and praxis is nothing without theory.

[justalittlesolarpunk]

You must believe that the world is going to change. You must believe that you can change it. Not alone, like some ruggedly individualist caped superhero, but as part of a mass movement, a superorganism, a shared heart, a moment of unity. You must trust that your actions matter, even when they don’t. You must remember that even if going to a protest or opening your doors to the desperate or giving up hyperpconsumption cannot alter the wider societal patterns if only you undertake to do so, that you are just one drop of water in an ocean. And it will change you. That is often the first step. You must believe that one day all the fossils will stay in the ground. You must believe that one day war will be a distant memory. You must believe that one day women will dance in the streets at night unafraid. You must believe that one day land will belong to everyone and queer liberation will be achieved. You must believe it. Even if your great-grandchildren do not live to see it done. Prefiguration is praxis. It’s therapy. It’s all we have.

[hazardous-waste-containment]

Most useful and actionable thing I have to say about antifascist praxis besides ‘punch them very hard’ is probably that fascists (and insurgent dominionists) very rarely come to power just through violence and manipulation (without either the aid of a foreign power or an extremely strong basis in the military); they build up a social, political, cultural, and paramilitary counterpower on a wave of genuine popular support, by filling voids where the state has retreated or is stretched too thin and which the left has failed to resolve. The most effective way to do this is by satisfying material needs, e.g. Golden Dawn’s blood/clothes/food drives or housing squats by Italian fascists. The goal of a fascist movement trying to claw its way to ‘Stage 2’ is to build and mobilize an entire alternative society in as many strata of their ingroup as possible. Sometimes they operate in tandem with the state – if the state has withdrawn, it probably prefers that the gap be filled by someone who will uphold ‘class unity’ and social hierarchy – but other times they’re forcefully usurping it. The point is, though, that autonomous self-organization – the state does not leave a power vacuum because the people are not powerless – is the only real solution; fascists can’t organize communities that are already organized.

[catnip-kitty]

Why Gay Sex is Dialectic, an Essay

As a petite proletariat (twink) who reads theory, I was pondering the nature of homosexuality in terms of dialectical materialism, in particular, how gay sex fit into Engel's three laws of dialectics.

Just as Engels posits that internal contradictions or tensions drive change in the law of unity and conflict of opposites, the same could be said for the homoerotic tension of a top-bottom relationship. While tops and bottoms appear to exist as binary oppositional roles, they coexist internally within a relationship. While the duality may give rise to differences in preferences, desires, and dynamics these differences can be resolved through negotiation between the partners. The act of say gex, is thus, the ultimate act of such negotiation, a synthesis of contradictions.

Furthermore, the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes could be seen the complications to that top-bottom dynamic. The roles of tops and bottoms can be redefined through the process of negotiation. In fact, surveys from Autostraddle [1] show that the majority of people in a gay relationships are switches, not strictly tops or bottoms. This indicates that the physical designation of top or bottom is thus the result of an accumulation of decisions and preferences, culminating in the qualitative dynamic. This is exemplified by the ways in which masculine-feminine attributes or sub-dom dynamics play a role in gay sex — these attributes, which can be seen as mostly qualitative assignations are the result of the accumulation of quantitative changes.

I would further propose that, through the collaborative dialectic process of negotiation, the social dynamics of gay relationships can change, including that top-bottom dynamic. Engel's law of the negation of the negation captures these changes precisely. The traditional associations between masculinity and feminity, subordination and domination are, to an extent, being subverted in many 21st gay relationships in contrast to the strict gender roles seen in Greco-Roman times [2] or the Tokugawa period [3]. For example, I want a femboy to top me. Whether through the process of resolving contradictions in homosexual intercourse, the top-bottom dynamic or between other qualitative attributes, the process of negation and transformation dialectically results in a more egalitarian understanding of say gex. This is the socialist means of reproduction.

In conclusion, gay sex is praxis.

[1] Riese. “Tops, Bottoms, Switches: One Last Look at All the Survey Data.” Autostraddle, 7 Aug. 2018, www.autostraddle.com/tops-bottoms-switches-one-last-look-at-all-the-survey-data-424953/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2024.

[2] Hubbard, Thomas K. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome : A Sourcebook of Basic Documents. Berkeley, Univ. Of California Press, 2010.

[3] Leupp, Gary P. Male Colors : The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan. Berkeley, University Of California Press, 2011.

[deadboydetectives-confessions]

This is the last I'll say about subculture, but I'm imploring you guys, please if you wanna learn more about Ska and how it might be important to Charles, just pick up a record and listen. Punk has always been about the music, ska has always been about the music. Through punk many POC, LGBTQ, and other marginalized communities have found themselves in a safe space they can call their own. You don't have to dig the music to get the message. It means so much to me, a fellow brown girl, to see Charles through that lens bc it means that he found the same comforts that I found in punk rock. Ska is all about coming together and saying fuck you to racists who want to harm the most vulnerable of our communities. It's why Charles' death means so much when it comes to his subculture. It's probably what gave him the courage to pick a fight with his friends and finally put into praxis what his favorite bands were talking about. *Community* and *Unity*, brown black and white standing together when everything and everyone wants to destroy you. It brings a sense of Justice to his character. I think this is what the other subculture anons are dancing around. Just knowing a character's world view can help so much with characterization.

So please, I will once again implore you. If you wanna learn, just sit and listen. There's a lot of good there to learn from.

.

[dipperdesperado]

notes towards changing the world

i feel like the main way to change the world is to not think on a global scale. one of the coolest things about complex systems is how agents in the system, focusing on the local level and following simple rules while cooperating with other agents can create global behaviors. a vision of solarpunk could be the attempt at imagining and prefiguring a world that embraces complexity for the betterment of all of the agents in the system.

so, to change things, thankfully we don't have to figure out how to bring about worldwide upheaval. if we can change the local milieu, that can reverberate outward. this is not to say that it's easy, but it's possible. this is also not to say to never think globally. it's a dialogue between spheres of distance. you have to have a revolution internally to have a revolution interpersonally to have a revolution locally to have a revolution regionally and so on and so on.

now, we can finally talk about how to change things. the general (relatively nonlinear) phases of this process are analyzing and trying to understand the world, creating visions, goals, and values from that analysis, creating strategies to reach those goals, and enacting tactics birthed out of those strategies.

Analysis

Identify the social issue: figure out the bad thing. try to understand the bad thing using complexity theory/systems theory. in other words, understand what the system is, what are the agents/elements are within that system (people, institutions, environments, etc), where the resources flow, what feedback loops exist, and what the vulnerabilities are.

Set your goals: The goal is to promote systemic change that addresses the root causes of the social issue, rather than simply addressing individual symptoms or surface-level manifestations. The guiding principles may include holistic thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Visions, Goals, and Values

Visions: think about what you want the world to look like. put on your utopian lenses. what are the dreams that you have for the community (and maybe even the world at large)? Try to stretch your imagination as far as you can.

Goals: based on your visions, what are some more concrete targets to aim for? for ex., if one of the aspects of your visions is a city that is in harmony with nature, what are the material changes that need to happen?

Values: what are the guiding lights that will inform how you reach your goals? This can be thought of as the ethical/philosophical foundation of your praxis. these would also be points of unity for other folks. some good ones to include in this would be solidarity, free association, and a militant anti-oppressive orientation.

Strategy

Universal goals: make some specific goals for your specific context. ex. “everyone can access healthy, culturally relevant, and dietarily conscious food.”

Understand where the community is: how is the community, on average, doing at reaching this goal?

Understand the population: figure out the population segments in the given community, and discover their “distance” from the goal. take not of those differences.

explore the system: look at and make visible the structures that support or impede each group or community from achieving the universal goal.

create bespoke responses: develop and implement targeted strategies for each group to reach the universal goal. using our food example, rich folks in a community might not need any help reaching this goal, while unhoused neighbors might be furthest from this goal. this allows us to create responses that help each group in the ways that benefit them the most.

dismantle the system: while providing an equitable response to the issue through your bespoke responses, work towards removing the root causes of the issue. equity is good, but we want to move toward the abolition of oppressive systems and enter a space of liberation.

Tactics

tactics are the actions that we take, informed by our strategy, which stems from our goals, visions, and values. to organize specific tactics, a useful mental model is to think of “encircling” your goal. essentially, we want to try to reach our goal using multiple tactics in parallel (or relative parallel), attacking issues from multiple angles. I think that it’s ideal to have as many tactics deployed as is reasonable, but I like the idea of 2-4 campaigns of tactics going at the same time. I also like these tactics to be across the spectrum of commitment, from very simple, low-lift, and “reformist”, to more high-lift and “radical” or “revolutionary”. So, while our goal is to destroy the rule of authority (and all of its associated ills), actions that directly do that are the most extreme, and most folks don't start off ready for that level of commitment. To build that capacity in practice, this strategy could look like:

One campaign starts by making appeals to authority and getting more radical from there (foot in the door). Some examples are basically all of the things that liberals say to make changes: calling representatives, signing petitions, writing letters, op-eds, case studies, and things like that. Realistically, if the goal is widespread change, these things won’t really be able to cut it. You can’t vote a revolution in. So, we can use the more liberal actions as a gateway into more revolutionary actions. We also HAVE TO make sure we’re transparent about this so that people retain their ability to freely choose how they engage. In this campaign, we’re marching towards more and more radical action.

One or Two campaigns that start with civil disobedience (foot in the face). Some tactics here could be boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, and the like. Similar to the above action, we march towards more radical stuff but start from a more antagonistic position.

One campaign that starts with more directly confronting authority (door in the face). This campaign would start at as far of a place that the people would want to go. This would escalate into more radical action from a very radical place.

The purpose of formatting our tactics in this way is to be fighting on multiple fronts in ways that makes the movement harder to clamp down on, while having folks move in a more radical direction.

Note that all of these tactics are informed by what comes before them. Like everything else, it is useful to think of this as a dialogue. We don’t want tactics with no conception of a strategy and such, and by doing our tactics, we should and can reframe our strategy.

[flamingkorybante]

Like many of my comrades I have been heartbroken by the nationalist fervor coming at me from all directions over the last week. I know it’s difficult for many diasporic Jews to imagine a praxis that integrates all of the ancestral trauma that we carry with the drive for peace and justice for all peoples to which we are commanded, and I want to offer as a possibility that tikkun olam will come when ALL borders fall and ALL states dissolve.

Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov wrote that in olam haba’a, all borders and laws will dissolve before the light of the divinity present in all things – that even the border between Shabbat and the other days of the week would crumble, allowing the holiness of the Shabbat to infuse into every day (as Jill Hammer writes, this vision of sacredness infused into every day, every place, deconstructing artificial boundaries of space and time, “does not reject the Temple but rather enlarges it”). To divest from loyalty to the state and become instead a cosmopolitan – a citizen of the universe – “testif[ies] to the unity of the Creator and his creation – just as the former is one and undivided, so too the latter.”

“Every border implies the violence of its maintenance.” - Ayesha A. Siddiqi

There is no border between peoples, and consequently no state, that is not created and maintained through dehumanization. When we accept the existence of any state as good or even as a necessary evil, we are accepting the proposition that the people on the other side of the border are not people in the same way as we are, and that their suffering does not matter in the same way that our suffering matters.

It is only when we reject such a fantasy that we can rise together. We do not need the state to protect us from our cousins; we need to join with our cousins to protect each other from the state.

We are in a climate of unbearable propaganda; we are being thrown bodily into the memories of generations of screaming ancestors who yearn for sanctuary. This is being crafted intentionally by agents of states who need us to be too dissociated, too triggered, and too terrified to connect across difference so that they can get on with their work of exploitation and domination. Our only job right now is to resist that, to push through the dissociation and the fear and the trauma to reach out for each other, to dismantle the borders and walls and protections that the fear and trauma spring up around us, to remember that we are not each other’s enemy.

When we tear down the walls around our hearts, we are making ourselves into channels through which olam haba’a can be born, and when we tear down the walls in the world, letting the sacred peace of Shabbat rush in like undammed water, letting the artificial mechanisms of the state -- ANY state , all states -- be washed away by a river of solidarity, we are bringing it to pass.

[zapsoda]

tis a breaking bad quote

[oceanicmarxist]

Thinking actionists answer: among the things to be changed include precisely the present conditions of the separation of theory and praxis. Praxis is needed, they say, precisely in order to do away with the domination by practical people and the practical ideal. But then this is quickly transformed into a prohibition on thinking. A minimum is sufficient to turn the resistance to repression repressively against those who, as little as they wish to glorify their individual being, nonetheless do not renounce what they have become. The much invoked unity of theory and praxis has the tendency of slipping into the predominance of praxis. Many movements defame theory itself as a form of oppression, as though praxis were not much more directly related to oppression. In Marx the doctrine of this unity was inspired by the real possibility of action, which even at that time was not actualized. Today what is emerging is more the direct contrary. One clings to action for the sake of the impossibility of action. Admittedly, already in Marx there lies concealed a wound. He may have presented the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach so authoritatively because he knew he wasn't entirely sure about it. In his youth he had demanded the "ruthless criticism of everything existing." Now he was mocking criticism. But his famous witticism against the young Hegelians, the phrase "critical critique," was a dud, went up in smoke as nothing but a tautology. The forced primacy of praxis irrationally stopped the critique that Marx himself practiced. In Russia and in the orthodoxy of other countries the malicious derision of critical critique became an instrument so that the existing conditions could establish themselves so terrifyingly. The only thing praxis still meant was: increased production of the means of production; critique was not tolerated anymore except for the criticism that people were not yet working hard enough. So easily does the subordination of theory to praxis invert into service rendered to renewed oppression.

Except from Resignation (1969) by T. Adorno

[androphagy]

to begin: this is about the transgender demographic and anyone who believes they fall under that umbrella as a whole. no one is exempt from being transmisogynistic (or misogynistic in general) on basis of sex or gender. presentation absolutely contributes to level of bigotry experienced, especially in relation to transphobia; if you're a no-op no/pre-HRT transmasculine person, you are not going to see the same level -- if at all -- of transphobia the average trans woman (and someone who is medically transitioning, depending on the situation) does. that is another post entirely, but know that this is about trans people tearing other trans people down in an almost crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.

that being said: if your only critiques of other trans people are you're a credulous weapon for engaging with [gender demographic i resent] and on basis of sex you're ontologically incapable of being anything other than [variety of bigotry based on oppositional dynamics] and you should be mistrusted as such in every situation then mix it up with epithets such as "itfab" and, i quote, "i do not care about the poor little girls who didn't come out of T looking like an anime twink, at all, nobody should" -- you're not ready for any form of discussion beyond high school cafeteria gossip. and even then, that might be pushing it.

there are ways to discuss and condemn bigotry (of all kinds) within a certain demographic without smearing and insulting them under the idea of "they've had it too good for too long, they deserve it" and all but saying "transphobia is praxis if its the ones that see less overt effects of oppression." anger and frustration is natural -- and personally, important! -- but disguising vitriolic misogynistic rhetoric as a real and "valid" breakdown on the pervasive societal role of transmisogyny is not going to make anything better, aside from maybe a few minute's relief by offloading well-deserved but misdirected rage.

(again) personally, i don't believe that there's any true unity to be had in the hyperindividualistic-but-homogenized social media age. addressing any group within what could be loosely defined as "queer" or "TQ+" comes with having to make so many caveats, people telling you what you missed or wrongfully included, and is tied up in so much interpersonal conflict that gets mistaken for genuine commentary on the current existence and history of gender identity that it feels entirely pointless to make any posts attempting to speak in good faith to begin with, especially due to the (again) hyperindividualism and extremely selfish worldviews held by people who don't have to be or aren't ever verbally challenged outside of the internet aside from, as i said, interpersonal conflict. the lack of real life experience also influences these issues.

can said conflict be indicative of a larger issue? of course. you see it in the use of callout posts/blogs/docs and how they aide in transmisogyny as a tool for unpersoning and ostracizing trans women and those on the transfeminine axis; callouts would be on the board of things utilized by people AFAB/CAFAB (because in the interest of honesty, when "TME" is used in reference to online queer discourse, it's talking about trans men, nonbinary people CAFAB/AFAB, and cis women. i think we can agree that by-and-large cis men are not indulging in discussions of gender politics, especially through the lens of fandom and social media) to silence and chase away trans women and transfems from online and real-life spaces.

that, however, doesn't mean breaking up into insular cliques that use harmful rhetoric as basis for coloring worldviews with the beliefs that other trans people as a whole are the enemy somehow fixes this, especially when said cliques are doing nothing aside from being as mean as possible and centering a "target" of which is acceptable in said clique to punch down on. they aren't writing theory, bringing any new discussion to the table, or working towards a healthier and more understanding future for all involved; they are all interested fostering cruelty for the sake of being cruel.

i truly do understand the anger. i don't talk about my personal experiences here because i also understand that they're not the norm for someone of my typical demographic, and i've never been in any community for LGBT+ people beyond a short stint in a high school GSA which was overrun by cishet "allies" who decided to kick the few actual LGBT people out in favor of appealing to fans of rupaul's drag race (which is a long and extremely frustrating story.) i've given no reason to believe me, but i'm coming at this from years of observing many different groups from all over the "LGBT umbrella", along with research and readings in addition to my personal experiences.

in short: you're telling me that this group of transgender people are ontologically worse/"bad"/more dangerous than the others and should not be trusted until they prove that they're one of the good ones? isn't that exactly what we should be going against instead of encouraging?

[laulo821]

what do you think about lib unity?

honestly, it's maybe my favourite pairing of the extremists (if we don't take into account the extremists polycule supremacy)

i think they have a strong dymanic with each other, bringing out a more youthly / "summer love" type of vibe that any pairing with the auth can't mimic so authentically. refreshing when reading non-angst (or low angst) fics; and in tune with the intended funny tone of Centricide!

also, i think ancom is the best extremist to bring out ancap's humanity. to make him change (e.g. become pink ancap with queers' wellbeing in mind) or to reinforce him in his immoral traits (e.g. ancom's childish behaviours could highlight his ephobophilic preferences)

for ancom... ancap's the best party, qui can chill with him, use drugs with him, do some anarchist praxis with him, whereas you could consider commie as unrequired love / a simp yet abusive ex-partner; and, well, blueman is just downright awful for quem. plus, thanks to the libunity, ancom can make things better for quis communities by using ancap's fortune (although it could betray quis morals). and ancom having to put up with ancap's friends (a.k.a. hoppean) is funny as heck

anyways, have a bonus quick sketch of libunity

Thank you for the ask, aur-el-ias!

[kitabasis]

Tentative design for Pearl Fallon, a major NPC in the Boston By Night campaign I’m prepping. She’s assigned to the PCs—uni students who got shovelhead’ed, and were the sole “survivors” of their Mass Embrace—as both their “foster sire” and their probation officer by the Prince of Boston, Hazel Iversen. She was specifically assigned to the task on account of her prodigious Auspex—and, maybe, to keep her busy. While Iversen occasionally consults her for her expertise, Pearl has no official position of any kind—nor can she ever attain one in the Camarilla. Pearl is Malkavian, and the Clan members have been forbidden from holding any Court titles (save for Primogen...not that Iversen listens much to her Primogen) in Boston (and New England generally), since their Clan Bane was blamed (some might say scapegoated) for the tumultuous praxis of their clanmate, Quentin King, and his knights.

While Pearl resents this, she earnestly believes that the Camarilla is the best option New England has, and doesn’t want to risk causing factional conflict by challenging it directly; instead, she hopes to diplomatically change the system from the inside…even though her ability to sense others thoughts and emotions means that she has ample proof that the Camarilla is unwilling to let that happen, despite Iversen’s talk of modernity and unity.

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Magic and religion as a performative theological unity : the apotropaic 'Ritual of Overthrowing Apophis'

I. Kousoulis, Panagiotis (1999) Magic and religion as a performative theological unity : the apotropaic 'Ritual of Overthrowing Apophis'. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.

"Abstract

Magical and ritual sources have characteristically tended to be under-exploited in the study of ancient societies, partly for the superficial inaccessibility, and partly because they have been disreputably attractive to the "esoteric" fringe. They do, however, provide a number of detailed insights into the relations between real and practical behaviour and the ideological/religious explanations of that behaviour. The present study attempts to investigate this interrelation between magical and religious phenomena, having as starting point and basic theme of reference the apotropaic "Ritual of Overthrowing Apophis, " the enemy of Re par excellence. It will examine the function and mechanisms of the ritual from its first appearance in the funerary liturgies of the Middle Kingdom until its acquisition of a complete cultic character within the broader religious environment of the Ptolemaic temples of Edfu and Dendera. The presentation of the available material cannot reach completeness. The present study does not claim to be a integral philological investigation of either the complex nature of the serpentine enemy of the sun god or of the ritual texts referring to his conflict with Re and his final expulsion. Rather, carefully selected texts concerning the Apophis ritual are used as a trigger for re-examining certain areas and aspects of cultic phenomena where religion and magic reaches a "theological, " performative unity. Techniques that are common in both systems, such as the magician's acting and speaking as god ("divine speech"), the enumeration of the human bodily parts that are ascribed to particular deities ("lists"), erasure of names and mutilation of images (damnatio memoria), should be analysed and re-evaluated under this new perspective. Questions concerning the notion of hk3 itself, should also be considered: was hk3 considered to pre-exist as the archetype creative force, or was it a human invention to explain the unexplained and to control and repel hostile forces beyond its nature, or was it a personification of the power of ritual? Such a methodological approach to Egyptian magic will lead into a stage where the main point of reference will be the anthropology and sacred praxis of hk3, rather than a random compilation of superstitions and popular beliefs."

Panagiotis Kousoulis is Professor of Egyptology, Department of Mediterranean Studies, at the University of the Aegean and Director and founder of the Laboratory for the Ancient World of the Eastern Mediterranean in the same Department.

The sun god Ra, in the form of Great Cat, slays the snake Apep (Apophis), the ancient Egyptian deity who embodied darkness and disorder (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apep).