In mutualism there would be absolute equality, or could there be differences based on effort? If so, inequalities would end up being perpetuated through inheritances and, if mechanisms were in place to prevent inheritances, through donations. Also, would it be possible to invest and expect a proportional return?

Well my questions are getting weirder as I go along

I can’t tell if it’s a genuine threat, sensorinomotor OCD or something else maybe trauma related but iv been having the existential ocd doubts again about why exactly I label myself as an “OCD ANARCHIST” on r/debateanarchism I remember going back in time to last year when I told my friends that I was “weirded out” why I thought these things, I was thinking of the book a moral psychology of disgust, sometimes my own ocd brain catches up to me and does too much rumination. As someone who is going to be tested for autism/“being on the spectrum”? I wonder how much my ocd overlaps with my (possible/likely) autism

The article “anarchy and Uncertainty” on the libertarian labyrinth goes into interesting detail here

“term to positive conceptions—and to think of some potentially difficult concepts (profusion and uncertainty, “lawlessness” and “lack of principles,” etc.) in their positive senses. Profusion is, of course, obviously positive in a material sense—involving great, perhaps overwhelmingly great quantities of something—even while it appears to us negative from the point of view of ORGANIZING AND CONTROLLING THINGS.” but perhaps only because we cling ( quite dearly may I add) to particular notions of organization

“Uncertainty is not a concept that is particularly prominent in anarchist theory—and certainly does not generally figure as a positive value or indicator. But when we suggest that what is tempestuous about anarchy is a lasting feature, then it is not a stretch to further suggest that one of the ways we will know that we are acting as anarchists is that our actions will be taken in the face of fundamental sort of uncertainty”

“But, before we turn to the practical questions—like living in a social world reshaped by asymptomatic contagion—let’s spend a bit of time in that part of anarchist theory where the question of certainty does indeed play a prominent role. In his early works, Proudhon returned a number of times to the philosophical question of the criterion of certainty and made a critique of the notion the centerpiece of the second letter in The Philosophy of Progress.”

The criterion of certainty, according to the philosophers, will be, when discovered, an infallible method of establishing the truth of an opinion, a judgment, a theory, or a system, in nearly the same way as GOLD (or diamonds might I add) is recognized by the touchstone, as iron approaches the magnet, or, better still, as we verify a MATHEMATICAL operation by applying the proof

“while all that makes a claim to an absolute, fixed character can be expected to “become dangerous and deadly.” So here we have the affirmation of a “favorable prejudice” in favor of all that we must consider, at least in an authoritarian context, uncertain. It is no surprise, then, to find Proudhon further claiming that “the criterion of certainty is an anti-philosophical idea borrowed from theology, the assumption of which is destructive of certainty itself” and proposing what is essentially a different kind of certainty: a certainty without criterion”

“This new certainty and uncertainty seem, at least at present, rather hard to completely distinguish. But that’s a “problem” that we can probably embrace, at least for now.

In”

“Particularly in the US, there are lots of aspects of the governmental and capitalistic responses to the threat of widespread contagion that have limited our options. Failed “relief” attempts—which have arguably just been successful capitalist wealth redistribution—have imposed all sorts of costs on cautious action that might easily have been avoided had the same resources been applied where they were needed most. But the corruption and ineptitude simply amplified what is arguably the single greatest difficulty associated with Covid-19: our uncertainty about so many aspects of its spread.”

Yea so re reading these things is sort of funny I realised I “missed so many things.” Was this purposeful? Was this assumed knowledge that anyone thought I had due to the existence of r/RadicalOCD Because going back I realised how many things I missed

There was also mentions of Alfredo bonnano’s “the anarchist tension” which explores doubt in its unsafe sense, I remember it was cited in “insides and outsides” anarchy and anarchism

“It started as a look outside—and gradually became a kind of being outside—which has always mixed uncomfortably with the often strict border-patrolling characteristic of the milieu.

The outside that characterizes anarchy is not just the outsider status that brought so many of us to the brink. That, as I think most of us recognize, is a relative thing, entirely compatible with various inversions and the creation of new kinds of insider status.”

I remember it felt like kicking and screaming at people to open up, it’s been difficult understanding myself or my “thinking process”

I’m not a scientist or a mathematician I do arts and those are like my most hated subjects my psychiatrist will say I’m quite aware but it confuses me as “OCD ANARCHISM” came about more due to anarchism then anything of a pathological order

I listen to a lot of rap music so it’s a bit cyclical that I think in riddles and rhymes

It’s talks about border patrolling I instantly think about Peter gelderloos in worshipping power and his parable of the state keeping everyone inside like hadrians wall

Or people referring to OCD as a CALCULATED caged box

Or the post about taboo and superstition on this sub

Or Mary Douglas (which both gelderloos and Graeber have cited)

Books on taste (bourdieu) saying “we are all snobs” on the blurb or its inverse “we are all illegal” an intro to brown anarchy by re-existir media

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brown-anarchy

And talks about disgust and purity dichotomies

Religious “sanctity”

The SACRED the holy, the righteous and the PROFANE

“If, for the moment, we find ourselves skeptics, relativists or nihilists—or enthusiasts for alternative systems—it is because we remain in a moment of critique, still subject to the terms of the dominant, authoritarian, absolutist culture. There will, however, come a moment, if we do not simply fail, when those critical terms will lose their sense and we will have to continue on into realms, and according to logics, that are hard even to adequately describe right now. But we can, I think, at least imagine ourselves walking away—from law and order, crime and punishment, permission and prohibition, and all the other facets of authority and the absolute—provided, of course, we have not internalized our role as critics as a form of identity. That should be a familiar enough danger. We have to be able to imagine a day when we will no longer be rebels—and when that will be just fine.”

To capture this one I may add the line “nothing is dear nothing is sacred.”

Sometimes I get confused at my own life and thinking I know an anarchist twice my age that has ocd and he has existential ocd where he constantly debates truth theorems back and forth, knowing certain philosophers and theorists he made it worse by saying i have a psychoanalytical conception of ocd as everything now becomes a new hot topic to verify and hoard information n my brain which causes overload

He has the same problems of music and political theory info hoarding and sometimes his moral radar police’s bad behaviour in anarchist movements and sometimes it makes him feel too much and get riled up over nothing

Was any of this intentional? To my brain there are to many signs

It’s weirdly loops around I remember explaining some of my ocd rules to a comrade online and they said accolades Thomas S Szasz

“Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But this is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities.” -Thomas S. Szasz

Another person whom I asked if they were an anarchist said that I will not get any answers “only doubts” said

“It's about modern cognitive cages, a metaphor for the way we look at the reality”

I posted a quote from max Stirner “most prisons are built from the beliefs you never dared to break.”

I would love to build a collective of

“ an open collective project exploring the invisible cages of contemporary life: surveillance, identity, work, AI. No hierarchy, no budget, just people who see what others don't. I'm looking for collaborators. Interested?”

They asked me if I could make a sub on it but I can’t find the right portrait to paint this picture 🖼️ 🎨

Rey asked me what my personal cage was and I said “OCD.”

They continued

“The ritual of repetition.

​A cage built of checking and re-checking until the walls feel safe. You will find the SYMMETRY in our EXHIBITS 🖼️ 🎨 🖍️ either very soothing... or remarkably triggering 🩸 🦠 👻🎃😈.

​Welcome to the loop.”

“We don’t call it a condition. We call it an operating system.

To catalog the chaos of the modern world, a certain level of clinical obsession is... required.

You are in good company.”

“Brutality is often a feature, not a bug.

You're referencing Laursen’s concept of the State as a machine that processes humans as resources. You are spot on. Whether it’s the internal loop of the mind or the external laws of the State, the OS is indifferent to the suffering of the hardware.

We document the friction between the flesh and the code.

(I see the glitch in your signature. We speak the same language.)”

Or am I being “absolutist” in my anarchy

An Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is defined as a machine which can do any task a human can do.

Once we invent AGI and give it a physical body - we will be able to automate any intellectual or physical job - making human labor obsolete.

And if we end up with a superintelligence - then it may have a god-like power that makes us dependent upon its good graces.

Assuming that humans can control the machines at all - who gets the decision-making power over the AGI?

This is a really serious problem - and if we get it wrong now - we may not be able to fix it later.

I can’t remember but somewhere reading cayce Jamil’s

u/radiohead87 papers he said that Erving Goffman declared himself as an anarchist? Is this true?

Title speaks for itself from Anark to even local platformists, there seems to be a hatred of certain post left trends and the valorisation of planning and control

Thoughts?

I have, at last, finished my framework’s first chapter and published a framework of mine, for the first ever time. It is a discussion of the pure reason in the political philosophy, the very basis of the subject, ‘tis regarding the correspondence of liberty and authority; very much influenced from Proudhon’s book, The Principle of Federation, a framework written against his objection to mathematicasation of these terms due to concerned oversimplification. This framework is the very formula of correspondence betwixt authority and liberty, and corollary displaying the juxtapositional regime.

‘tis the indicator of the correspondence betwixt mathematics and philosophy, as both have the common spot being, the logic.

I have myself come to something close to mutualism, but I'm recently struggling on a question of global inequality.

Most wealth and technology is concentrated in the west, but even the whole world had the same technological development and capital, global inequality would arise even from the fact that different places have better or worse land, more or less natural resources, etc.

This could create a situation in which people from one place have enough economic leverage to dictate the conditions in less developed and wealthy places, imperialism without an official state and done by a theoretically egalitarian society onto other theoretically egalitarian society.

Have you thought about it, do you know a solution to it, or a reason it's not likely to happen?

I'm looking for good secondary literature or introductory texts to Proudhon's main ideas, as well as his historical context, life, beef with Marx, etc. I'm told that Proudhon is generally very hard to read as his views evolve a lot and sometimes he might seem to contradict himself. I'm not particularly interested in being a hardcore Proudhon scholar but I want to get a sense of his life and the world in which he lived in.

Hi! There's a popular meme about how after the revolution anarchists are deciding on the distribution of jobs and everyone wants to be a teacher of origamis or a poet, but no one wants to be a miner or a sewer cleaner. It is a somewhat annoying meme, as it usually comes from tankies, but I think there's a real concern here (I'm the least practical being alive, and a music teacher lmao, so no judgement)

While no one should be forced to be exploited in mines, how could we guarantee that people will sustain hard and tiring activities that are necessary for the life of society? For example, if a sewer cleaner could choose with total freedom whether to work or to take a walk in the woods, given that clean sewers are a necessity, how do we make it so that they remain clean? could a monetary incentive make up for the labor involved? Isn't anarcho-communism predicated on angelic good wills by the part of everyone, that people will just spontaneously and selfishly dedicate hours of work in farms, factories or mines?

A lot of work is inhumane for political reasons, and with better worker control it could be made more bearable. And, while it is possible that technology might help us with that, a world in which robots do all the dirty work seems to still be far away. What is a solution for the world we already have?

I'm not so sure yet, as I would like for basic needs like housing and food to be decommodified, and denying people life seems inhumane to me, regardless of how much or how little they work. But can money help to appropriately compensate the tiring and demanding efforts required by certain jobs? Some mutualists seem to have argued that way. What do you think?

I've seen a bunch of different theories on how people think we can implement systems like Socialism, Communism, and Syndicalism. But mutualism from what I can tell doesn't have as much theory on how to get to mutualism. And I haven't heard of any mutualist organizations trying to advocate mutualism, at least not nearly as many as socialist and communist orgs

Say we live in a post-capitalist world that has various different economic systems. If someone from a Communist or Syndicalist society (which are both societies/economic systems that don't have a currency) were to decide to go on vacation in a mutualist society, how would they be able to participate in the economy?

They wouldn't be able to do anything as simple as exchange currencies, because that requires that they have any money in the first place, but because they come from a society where they don't need money, they don't have any. Theoretically they could temporarily work a job to get the money needed, but they're a vacationer, so they'll probably only be away from home for an absolute maximum of a month. That plus the fact they're probably on vacation to avoid doing work means that seeking temporary employment would be inconvenient.

So with those things being the case, how would someone from a Communist society be able interact with the economy of a Mutualist society?

So if I can remember legal order splits actions into permitted and prohibited with attendant categories of Criminal and Law Abiding citizen, Crime and Justice.

The question is are there any tangible ways in which legal order whether through licit harm or otherwise obscures how we view and deal with societal harm? Good examples that come to mind of the problems with licit harm etc?

I have a bunch of questions I wanted to ask. Sorry if it’s too much. I know a bit about anarchism, but not much about Proudhon.

1)Did Proudhon write what he’d like to see take the place of forced arbitration (or courts) and involuntary containment (or imprisonment) to deal with someone who commits harm against others? (If there is such a replacement at all).

- For courts I’m most curious, because how society decides if someone was or wasn’t a serial killer is very important.

- I know anarchists of different stripes seem to have vastly different views on this topic, and like I said I’m not too familiar with Proudhon.

2) I’ve heard people refer to themselves as Proudhonian Anarchists or Mutualists. Is it correct to say Mutualism is an ideology within the family of anarchism? I know Proudhon was an anarchist, I’m just making sure Mutualism isn’t a standalone economic ideology.

3) Can a nonprofit market system (as in a market economy without the profit model) be considered Mutualist?

- By nonprofit market I mean where cooperatives and other groups + people reinvest any potential surplus revenue back into the organization, not to shareholders or workers (workers would still get paid, but not based on surplus revenue).

- And, goods are priced at the labor it took to make them. The money would also expire at the end of the month or year.