Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How would you describe yourself politically?
I wouldn't describe myself politically. However I'm fine sharing my "favourite" thinkers; insofar as I have any, they would be Krishnamurti & Perlman, perhaps.
I'm increasingly leery of labels, since they lend themselves so often to being used as epithets that end discussions; but, if it is, as a friend says, "the start of a conversation", I'll identify with anti-political/anti-social/anti-civilizational anarch(ist) or Cynic, in the neo-classical sense.

Stirner, Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, the Cynics, Lao Tzu, Yang Zhu, Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Junger, and Clément Rosset are probably my biggest influences and interests now - Zerzan and Jensen were a big influence when I got interested in anti-civ ideas about eight years ago. Various permaculturalists - like Jacke, Crawford, and Hemenway - have influenced me a lot on a praxeological level, even if their social analysis is mostly shit.
The only time I tried to have a serious discussion about my beliefs with a normie, she just blinked at me. Then weeks later called me a libertarian.

But since I've moved to the country and met other people with similar aims in my age group, the A-word is used as casually as any other.
That's funny, WaldnPwnd. I'm frequently called anarchist by non-anarchists, but anarchists have actually called me libertarian (as in proprietarian). Both call me primitivists. I find it amusing that they feel the need to pacify me with their labels. I do not accept either of those labels, for what it's worth.

It's very interesting to talk to people about these things. Many just blink, like you say, but those who are willing to go into it find that I'm perfectly reasonable. Politically aware people are actually the most difficult to talk to, as I'm a bit too radical for them. (Not radical as in "extreme," like it's often used in political discourse, but as in literally radical. E.g. they'll talk about wibbling some sort of law, when I don't accept laws in the first place.)
I'm gonna have to echo some of the other posters here and say that I don't consider my perspective to be a "political" one because, to me, the idea of "politics" implies the idea of representation; and representation implies the deferral of my capacity to think and act for myself into the hands of intermediaries. These intermediaries can include flesh-and-blood individuals like politicians and bureaucrats of various kinds, collective abstractions such as "the Masses," "the People," "the Working Class," etc, and even prefabricated ideological categories (including "anarchism" as such) that offer themselves up to me like so many boxes of cereal glistening on the supermarket shelf. Asking me my political position is, thus, a lot like asking, "which do you prefer, Lucky Charms or Count Chocula?" ;)

However, I'd be lying if I said that certain thinkers, both anarchist and non-anarchist alike, haven't influenced my perspective in some way. These include but are not limited to: Max Stirner, Frederich Nietzsche, Deleuze & Guattari, Raoul Vaneigem, Guy Debord, Wolfi Landstreicher, Jacques Camatte, Saul Newman, Bracha Ettinger, Frida Beckman... and the list goes on and on and on and on. With any new theorist I read, I always try to approach it with a "take what I like and leave the rest" mentality. This doesn't mean cherry-picking or taking a particular premise out of the theoretical context in which it was being developed, but trying to understand what the author was getting it with a particular idea, where it fits in relation to their broader project, identifying what I like about it, what I dislike about it, and how I might rework it to better suit my purposes. To me, this is what "critical self-theory" is all about.
(Wed, 05 Jul 2017 01:45:56 +0000, 01:45 AM)Zhachev Wrote: Thanks for sharing, you reminded me of a Bruce Lee quote:

“Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it.”

Yeah, Bruce always struck me as a pretty cool guy. I also like his quote, "be water, my friend." As much as I like Simon & Garfunkel, I think it's a far better way of looking at the Self than "I am a rock, I am an island." ;)
I like the word anarchist. Apart from the edge factor :^), I really do feel like the fundamental concept of anarchy is the most important aspect of my applied-ethical/political philosophy. Post-left and post-civ are more particular terms, and the degree to which they apply is both lesser and more variable than that of "anarchist". The term egoist is kind of a big deal to me too, but it doesn't manifest in a political sense as much as the others -- that is, it's an abstract component of my meta-ethical thinking rather than a concrete component of my political thinking.
If I had to give myself a label it guess it would be a Green Post-Left,Post-Civ Anarchist that is greatly inspired by existential thinkers like Camus and Nietzsche adding Native American and Eastern Philosophy (mainly Buddhism and Lao Tzu) to the mix, combined with the Social ecology/Communalism of Bookchin.
(Wed, 05 Jul 2017 01:45:56 +0000, 01:45 AM)Zhachev Wrote: Thanks for sharing, you reminded me of a Bruce Lee quote:

“Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it.”

Almost, I think it's: "Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is specifically your own".

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)