June 11, 2018
June 11, 2018
June 6, 2018
March 9, 2018
January 4, 2018
November 7, 2017
November 3, 2017
An exercise in abstracting the distinction between total agency and a complete lack of agency.
Proposition: Both Left and Right are politicizations of the apolitical. They take features of life which would happen without the state and include the state to protect them.
There's a distinction between 'belieiving' you own yourself and actually doing so. That's why I've often contended that anarchism sounds nice in a vacuum, but everyone is accountable to someone else or has others accountable to them.
A true synthesis of the Left and Right in politics would be something like fascism: Right Wing cultural sentiment implimented coercively through the violence of Left Wing mechanics.
That, or it would be Libertarianism: classically Right Wing economics with the Left Wing proggressive over-determination of mankind's unquestionably equal agency in the face of the free market (a secular stand-in for Free Will).
The real Center would not be a synthesis, but rather, something politically akin to the 'middle path' referred to in the far east. In spiritual terms, one could say this is a position which recognizes being as superior to effects or to becoming. It centers the attention of the subject so that it may always remain in balance. To balance, one needs something to balance between.
This could, perhaps, only be accomplished through an attitude of apoliteia, ironically. Life itself must become the issue, not ideologies or means of adequately predicting the economy.
For this to be an option, society would be designed in such a way that people would be encouraged to strive for the highest agency they could, thus managing their own lives, putting them in agreement with others who want the same.
The impulses which created the Left and the Right are far older than either. Both have their uses, but the modern world sees both as only able to exist at the expense of one another.
In a culture where everyone is encouraged to maximize agency over themselves, it is more likely that people will be able to freely associate, thus being able to develop whatever kind of organization and economy that suits them best.
Thinking, today, is a condition of fear. This is why men you have never met in most cases patrol the streets with guns at their sides instead of beat guards moseying around the block with whistles like days of old. This is why we sometimes don't reorder our food when it is made wrong; we think someone is going to put a used condom in it. We're afraid of turning into our parents. We're afraid of being old and poor. We're afraid that having children will cost us money and adventure.
Spending so long in fear, we've learned to accept pathologically destructive standards for society. We think that people we've never met and never will meet even if we want to are entitled to our money so that basic living conditions might be maintained, and then when that money is used to bomb medicine plants and military boats, we grumble about how stupid the democrats are or how stupid the conservatives are or how the green party is always ruining things or how some other group, acting in an entirely democratic fashion, is threatening our democracy.
Anarchism means something different depending on who one asks. It literally means 'no rulers,' while many emphasize its antagonism to the idea of 'the state.' Some are too lazy when it comes to defining 'state' and others are probably too hard headed when it comes to defining 'rule.' Some anarchists think that power itself shouldn't belong to any one person and are therefore against all hierarchies and all forms of positional leadership. Others simply think that all manners of social organization are permissible insofar as they are not coercive. But then, many people can't seem to agree on just what constitutes coercion.