Alt Text
Show parent replies
that's all well and good, but doesn't really get me anywhere. at least with other influences i can say "sure, i'm not a Radical Realist (what would that mean?), i just like the things raymond geuss wrote", but i can't even muster that for anarchists basically ever at this point.
"i agree with some implicit propositions of a yet-to-be-written rational reconstruction of a historical tradition and have benefited from my engagement with its literature" doesn't hit the same.
the whole joke of arriving at correct conclusions with horrible reasoning is genuinely torturous, especially when my primary concern is theoretical (i know its impolite to admit it, but i have no aspirations to activism or organization*).
*which i'm more than aware is not negligible, not just as a moral imperative but as something with theoretical import, but the state of available actionism is blatantly insufficient, misguided, and theoretically confused
this also fails to capture the nature of my rejection and the complicated aesthetic and affective relation i have to historical figures, methodological principles, personal motivations/dispositions, even argumentative rejoinders
in any case, formative immersion is just a difficult thing to shake. as cliche as it is, anarchism feels underdeveloped and naive, but for entirely opposite reasons than typically given.
ever since first becoming politically aware i've felt my adhesions to be gradually shifting directionally the same way, and whatever it is i'm expressing here, it doesn't feel like a violation of that trend
that's obviously a difficult thing to articulate and i'm not sure it's significant, beyond reassuring my ego
i think more than anything i just want to make it clear to myself that my rejection is not of the form "i think the state is good now actually" lol
it’s worth saying though because it demonstrates why i can feel alienated from anarchism and still be staunchly ardent on evaluations like this one