With all this, actionism acquiesces to the trend it intends or pretends to struggle against: the bourgeois instrumentalism that fetishizes means because its form of praxis cannot suffer reflection upon its ends
the answer is unfortunately something *sigh* dialectical where you can integrate those multifarious aspects into the single term and address each of its moments of interaction that progress the whole discussion (or system, depending on how grandiose your aims are)
there is something about a stipulated definition for an article-length piece that is exactly appropriate, it's perfectly applicable there and not out of place. there is an implicit demand that the reader understand the limitation. when given more room the writer has an obligation to be more thorough
yknow how david graeber talks about seasonal political structures that flexibly alternate between more authoritarian and more horizontal modes? my attractiveness and presentability are kind of like that, except the seasons are going out and doing gay shit instead of harvest time or w/e
yknow that section in the german ideology that's like "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner"? i'm like that but "anarchist when reading a marxist, nietzschean when reading an anarchist, feminist when i'm reading a nietzschean..."
"We are anarcho-syndicalists on the shop floor, green anarchists in the woods, social anarchists in our communities, individualists when you catch us alone, anarcho-communists when there’s something to share, insurrectionists when we strike a blow."
"its true that these are vital individual and political goods, but uhhh inequality is unfair and it's harder for poor people to do things so its oppressive to expect they could possibly be up to the task"
you'd be so much happier as a social democrat, deport some immigrants while you're at it
one thing you can say about christians at least from a fuerbachean-marxist standpoint is that at least they were able to construct and projectively identify with a more powerful being that could imaginatively achieve things. the secularized acquiescence is all the more flacid by comparison
right-libertarianism has similarities with anarchist communism (AC), but is even broader: while AC doesn't allow for hierarchical economic relations and won't endorse making a distinction between racial classes, right-libertarianism embraces any organizational style that is consensual, growthful, or
like, as used as an unmasking device. it's just weak and pathetic and weird. people will say internal criticism but that has a much different moral tone