Why didnt it produce any good writers?

Why didn’t it produce any good writers?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you really believe writers who are against the establishment are ever given a platform?

    You clearly have never tried yourself to write and reach other people.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anarchists almost exclusively come from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds, so it's more like they themselves are the establishment.

      https://i.imgur.com/IQlcQfv.png

      Why didn’t it produce any good writers?

      Politics in literature can only be a means but never an end in itself. Any poet or writer that refuses to accept this will sink like a rock the moment he leaves his echo chamber, or at the latest when his moment in the zeitgeist passes, only to be remembered as a relic of its time and place.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are absolutely zero roads to fame if you are outside of the establishment in 2023

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Anarchists almost exclusively come from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds
        Same for socialists, and radicals of every stripe. None of them ever struggled a day of their lives.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anarchists tend to be philistines.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      the only anarchist i know is a literature professor

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      lolno, maybe if your reference is the image of popular culture

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        > anarchists should support WW1!
        lmao at anarcho-trenchists

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with anarchy is the instant consolidation of power due to the inherent truth of evolution. Even within ten years, you would see the popular people, the wealthy people, the smartest people, and the most aggressive people gain power in some form. Within ten, they would be treated much better than others. Their children will be treated better.

    At some point, the adoration of the children of the smartest, strongest, most charismatic people turns into a primitive form of hierarchy. And from there, either religions form around their ancestors, or kings begin to rise up.

    In any case, evolution negates stable anarchy. The best anarchists can hope for is to "clear the slate of society" and start over. Consolidation of power is inevitable and the logical conclusion of anarchy is archy.

    So it becomes extremely difficult to write about anarchy in any real form because the logic itself doesn't work. Essays about anarchy have to be about the first five years, and ignore the fact that some people are Great People who can either be adored for their righteous virtues, or manipulate others into adoration via strength, deception, or anything else.

    In the end, stable anarchy is not possible, and I say this only because I was once a teenage anarchist who simply realized the inevitable truth. Oh well. Sure would've been fun.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Individualist anarchy solves this by not trying to achieve equality in the first place.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but that's just going to lead to archy over time anyways. Equality isn't necessarily even a word I ever used, thus it's the reality that we are NOT equal that leads to archy.

        In a perfectly stable world, perhaps anarchy would last longer. But the moment we require a group to survive, be it famine or war or just the desire to enhance civilization, I would see "individualist anarchists" come back to the flock.

        Anarchy just isn't sustainable, and if what you're after is to ignore laws, rules, gods and kings, and be your own master, then the absolute materialistic scientific anarchist atheistic perspective is that all humans are literally feral animals that are forced to participate in evolution and no state/church exists: They are all spooks. We are mere mortal animals part of an evolutionary chain, and no state/church/civilization actually exists in reality whatsoever.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >But the moment we require a group to survive, be it famine or war or just the desire to enhance civilization, I would see "individualist anarchists" come back to the flock.
          You can be in a group and still be an individualist just like you can be an anarchist under a state. The important thing is your perspective toward these things.
          >Anarchy just isn't sustainable,
          This only matters if you care about sustainability.
          >We are mere mortal animals part of an evolutionary chain, and no state/church/civilization actually exists in reality whatsoever.
          I agree.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but I'm not necessarily arguing against you then. I'm just arguing against the typical form of anarchy, such as an an-cap world or an an-com world, where in either of those *popular* cases, I do not think they would be sustainable nor would they end up keeping us free from some form of control over our lives. The concept of "ethics" or "morality" alone, when defined, already creates a sense of what you should do, and codify it and add punishments, and it's just a law.

            But thatmis why I stopped writing about anarchy.

            I used to write stuff like this: https://peakd.com/anarchy/@heretickitten/is-the-average-human-bred-or-brainwashed-to-obey-authority

            But now I just don't think anarchy is something people care about. People here talk about free-will even, as if those same people did not obey obey obey their government, their social norms, their god, their boss at work, the rules and TOS on their favorite websites, and everything else they are expected to obey and conform to.

            Anyone who can see past all this ...might just have a shot at defeating hard-determinism.

  5. 4 months ago
    8hts8

    depends what u mean by 'good'
    zerzan has dry prose, no style, but his message and ideas are perhaps the most important, and only relevant political, sociological commentary of our time

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    People who are aimless and driftless look to cast stones from glass houses because it’s easier to tear down existing establishments than it is to improve / build a new one. It’s always been easier to destroy than to create. Why would petulant children who only want to destroy things be any good at organizing their thoughts and disciplining themselves to actually create something of value? If they were even capable of being orderly enough to produce good writing they would cease to be an anarchist.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    tolstoy and le guin were anarchists. so it did

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kropotkin, Orwell

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    There tends to be 2 camps, on one end you have plenty of manual type material, much of which is lifted from the great autocratic institution known as the military. The manual material usually is so you can learn how to do things yourself and become self-sufficient, it is the only worthwhile material written, or perhaps more accurately phrased, plagiarized by the anarchists that is worth a read. If you go back to the late 1800s early 1900s you may find some ideological material but most of it will usually always boil down to a manifesto about how that particular individual wants to escape society somehow and believes anarchy is the solution. That sort of stuff is drivel for the most part. From the moment apes and australopithacus figured out working as a team accomplished significantly more there was no chance anarchy could survive in the state of nature for any prolonged period of time. Even if you look at failed states you may find lawlessness but you will also find people adhering to customs and mores as well.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *