anti individualism

People are individuals with independent thoughts from one another.

Women don’t have an opinion as a collective

White people don’t have an opinion as a collective

Black people don’t have an opinion as a collective

Trans people don’t have an opinion as a collective

Men don’t have an opinion as a collective

Gay people don’t have an opinion as a collective

If “erasure” means anything, it means ignoring the individuals in front of you and their individual ideas by making a collectivist caricature of them. You can’t just paint over real people with a collective strawman. There is no one exact way to be like or think like any of these superficial categories of people. People are individuals with individual minds, even if we’re talking about a clone. No degree of supericial similarness = sameness. You are as unique from the people of your race, gender, and family as you are from a cat or an iceberg. More similar? Sure. Same? Not in the slightest. You’re either the exact same or you’re not, and you’re not. Think for yourself, not as a group.

you know, call me crazy, call me biased af, but i just think it’s bullshit that we get all these sappy, ridiculous climon scenes and malec can’t even finish a goddamn conversation without someone walking in…and demanding, once again, that magnus fix their problems.

Equality does not mean “sameness”. While we can prescribe social equality of worth and power to all people, this does not presuppose uniformity. Only through egalitarian social systems can individuals fully realize their unique potentials and pursue their desires. The push away from capitalism and towards social ecology will, as Bookchin argued, simultaneously expand the human capacities for freedom and equality.

ok but i always believed ‘a song of ice and fire’ was just JON SNOW u know because he is the son of ice (lyanna stark) and fire (rhaegar targaryen) not as in jon snow is ice and daenerys is fire wtf is this some sort of YA mfeo romance? and rly no offense to YA romance fans but this just isn’t what i signed up for

Our societies and our States exist without our having fashioned them: they are put together without our consent: they are pre-ordained, having an independent and indissoluble life of their own, being against us individual­ists. The world today is, as the saying has it, at war with the ‘existing order of things.’ However, the meaning of that war is widely misunderstood, as if it were only a matter of swapping what currently exists for some new and better order. Instead, the war should be declared on every existing order, which is to say, on the State, and not on any particular State, much less upon the current form of State. The goal to be achieved is not another State (the ‘people’s State,’ say), but rather association, the ever-fluid, constantly renewed association of all that exists.
—  Max Stirner

@sikander-sg

“It’s a set of principles that involve a commitment to individual freedom and democracy.”

Okay…so how are we defining each of those terms?
By what metric does individual freedom and democracy necessitate a market economy?
By what metric does individual freedom and democracy necessitate a class structure built around access to capital – with a dominant class controlling society’s productive gears and a subordinate class having nothing to sell but their labor?
By what metric does individual freedom and democracy necessitate enclosures to resources and intellectual property?
This isn’t nitpicking – it’s just noticing that there is a social context through which we understand those political ideals of freedom and democracy.

This is why Marxists call liberals “idealists” – not because they have lofty ideas that supposedly defy reality, but because they fail to recognize the way in which material conditions give rise to ideologies (and how those ideologies are usually tailored to reproduce those material conditions). Liberalism defines individual liberty and democracy in a very particular, very historical way – a way which reproduces the material conditions of capitalism. These ideas don’t just form in a vacuum, in our “detached, rational minds”, and then just externalize to create social systems – it’s the opposite. Not all ideologies exist to reinforce the status quo (socialism, for example, wouldn’t exist as an ideology if this was the case), but they’re still almost always direct responses to the material relations of the status quo, whether in support or in opposition.

For this reason, if you were to ask a socialist what individual freedom and democracy means, you would receive different answers from liberals. We tend to believe that individual freedom shouldn’t come with the proviso that you generate labor that is profitable to someone else much more powerful than you (as under capitalism) – we believe that resources should be collectivized, automation should be fully utilized, and otherwise necessary labor should be divvied up so that the *individual* isn’t burdened by economic necessity and grueling workloads and class domination, giving them the ability to pursue what they’re passionate about. According to liberals (and the core ideologies surrounding capitalism), this isn’t individual freedom – and it’s not considered individual freedom *because* it doesn’t reproduce the conditions and mindsets necessary to keep the present system afloat.

What about democracy? Socialists believe that democracy means nothing if it doesn’t include your workplace, living spaces, and communities. This goes way beyond basic political democracy, even as socialism necessitates that as well – this is about recognizing that democracy is hollow and powerless as long as it only includes voting for one of two elite-selected suits every two-to-four years; it’s hollow and powerless as long as a small class of people control society’s productive gears *autocratically* for their own profit and structure the political game in their favor (which is, again, a major part of the system reproducing itself through ideology and social practice).

Liberals of all stripes absolutely must understand that their supposedly “detached” reference points for individual freedom and democracy are intensely ideological and dependent on particular material conditions – the material conditions of capitalism, the material conditions that benefit the few at the expense of the many. Those with power in this system will propagate whatever ideology they need to reproduce their power – this usually takes the form of liberalism, though it will often congeal into fascism when the system starts to wobble on shaky legs and the people start demanding a new system (fascism is the ruling class’s response to the demands for a new system from below; it’s a more overt and violent method of maintaining capital accumulation when the people demand an end to the concentration of resources by elites, and in the end fascism absorbs both nationalists and liberals whilst suppressing opposition from the left-wing that threatens ruling class material interests). It’s not about “principles” or “a commitment to high ideals” (for liberal politicians and the rich, anyway) – it’s about sustaining capitalism by obscuring the material conditions with fancy-sounding rhetoric and ideological justification.

In other words, Orwellian doublespeak (a term ironically/not so ironically used by liberals to oppose justice movements and reinforce the status quo).

Muslims who advocate Shariah law as a legal institution to replace the jurisdiction of the state and human rights are no better than Christian fundamentalists who advocate mosaic law and deuteronomic code to the exact same theocratic effect. The only difference is there arent exactly many christians advocating that.

But worse than both of them are leftists who advocate the hyper right wing feudal/theocratic system of Shariah law that they dont even subscribe to in the first place. It can only be attributed to pure malice against liberal human rights systems, gays, women, atheists, western civilization, and humanity itself. And they have the gall to pretend to be against FGM.

‘‘Στριφογυρνούσα και ήταν πια ξεκάθαρο… τα πιο όμορφα συναισθήματα, την πιο λεπτή ουσία του να είμαι άνθρωπος, την ανακάλυπτα όσο σταδιακά μεταμορφωνόμουν σε αγρίμι. Ναι, μπορώ να δηλώσω πλέον με σιγουριά πως, αφού δεν μπορούμε να νικηθούμε… θα νικήσουμε’‘. 

Question of interest for comrades

Do you think the rising tide of general social justice acceptance and broader notions of egalitarianism represent positive steps towards what could mean a more democratic control of resources (i.e. an eventual socialist revolution), or do you think neoliberalism can insidiously absorb equality and SJ rhetoric for its own purposes and keep us locked in a capitalist society? I feel a little bit of both, and I’m curious to see the views of others in detail.

anonymous asked:

lol I've tried explaining to some people who thing the cave of two lovers is a Kataang episode, that it really isn't but its foreshadowing Zutara, I said things you said about the red and blue and the crystals and how they're separate due to the war and all that, but hey they just called me a delusional Zutara shipper who makes things up and finds things and talks about things that aren't even there... 🤷🏽‍♀️

(Context.)

You know, I’ve yet to come across those people, but I recommend using this chart, made by Aaron Ehasz, posted to tumblr by Giancarlo Volpe:

How does Kataang fit into that?

How does it enhance the story? How does it move it forward? How does it embody the themes of the show? How does it contribute to the growth and development of the characters?

(Hint: It doesn’t. It doesn’t. It doesn’t. It not only does not, but actively stifles and reverses it.)

The people who defend it have this weird disconnect, I think, where they look at these characters and judge them as if they are real people.

They’re not.

They are characters in a story.

And a story has to make sense.

Especially a story like Avatar: the Last Airbender which is aiming for that MYTHIC over there.

In a story that is trying to be a Myth™, you cannot have something be cannon just because it’s cute.

It has to have symbolism. It has to have a deeper meaning. It has to be a vehicle for character growth and improvement.

Kataang is none of those things. Not a single one.

anonymous asked:

As someone who has knowledge in the current activities going about, I read you're definition of a fascist, which is plainly wrong about individualism. The anti-individualism is part of the Communist Karl Marx way. It's also, as you forgot to point out, totalitarian, same as communism. The united States is NOT a toltarian government, and that is the MAJOR requirement to be fascist. As well as the alt-right isn't commiting "purges" to beat up the left and torture as the left does.

This is amazing.

1) “ As someone who has knowledge in the current activities going about,”

What does that even mean?  Oh, you “have knowledge?”  So we’re supposed to defer to your authority on the subject, without any explanation of what “knowledge” you have?  WTF does “current activities going about” even mean or refer to???

2)  “ I read you’re definition of a fascist,” 

Oh, you’re (meaning “you are” as opposed to the possessive “your”) talking about our post yesterday that documented some of the aspects of fascism.  OK, we’re following you so far.

3)  “ which is plainly wrong about individualism.”

SAY WHAT SON???

4)  “The anti-individualism is part of the Communist Karl Marx way.”

OK, here are some problems with the “knowledge” you “have:”

a) “ Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism;” 
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.”  
- Benito fucking Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism.”  

Looks like the “knowledge” you “have” conflicts with fascism as described by Il Duce.

Other people who disagree with you about fascism & individualism: Italian historian Emilio Gentile; author and semiotician  Umberto Eco, international relations & geopolitics professor Dimitri Kitsikis; professor Karl Polanyi; historian George L. Mosse; political scientist Robert O. Paxton - suffice to say we could go on.  

But no, let’s not listen to historians, political scientists, and well-respected authors about the anti-individualist nature of fascism; let’s believe some anonymous rando on Tumblr who claims to “has knowledge in the current activities going about” instead.

b) We’re not going to argue about whether or not Marx was anti-individualist, but has it occured to you that more than one political system can be anti-individualist?  Apparently not.

5)  “It’s also, as you forgot to point out, totalitarian” 

We assumed that people would understand that a political system that brought about the ownership of government by one individual or a small group & organized mass murder equates to a totalitarian state.  Evidently we didn’t consider that people like yourself, who have “knowledge in the current activities” might nonetheless have difficulty making inferences on their own.

6)  “The united States is NOT a toltarian government, and that is the MAJOR requirement to be fascist.”

It’s “totalitarian.”  

Although we think it’s becoming a more-arguable point every single day (let us not forget the recent Day of Patriotic Devotion), we never referenced the United States in our post.   You are making a strawman argument and a piss-poor one at that.

7)  “ As well as the alt-right isn’t commiting “purges” to beat up the left and torture as the left does.”

Son, we never mentioned the so-called “alt-right” in our post.  You’re making your 2nd strawman argument in a five-sentence message.  GTFO with that shit.

Oh, actually, wait a second: so fascists aren’t committing purges?
  
You’re making that claim the same week that the Gestapo ICE arrested nearly 700 people in a nationwide series of raids?  

You’re making this claim two weeks after a Muslim woman was attacked at work by a raving Islamophobe

You’re making this claim less than three weeks after a fascist shot ten people in a mosque, killing six of them

You’re making this claim within a month of Donald Trump issuing an executive order barring immigrants, refugees, and even U.S. residents from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States

But you claim it’s “the left” that beats & tortures people, huh? 

Now please excuse us, we have to get back to our George Soros-funded torture chamber to beat & torture some fascists.

“The relative ease with which a young Communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. Many a university teacher in this country during the nineteen thirties has seen english and american students returned from the continent uncertain as to whether they were communists or Nazis, and certain only that they hated Western liberal civilization.

It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922, Communists and Nazis or fascists clash more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretics. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal

~Fredrick Hayek, ‘The Road to Serfdom‘, page 30

anonymous asked:

I loved your post about antishipping being the cool new trend for young/college age teens! Pretty much nailed my own opinion of it (and then I blew through your whole blog in like two hours lol I love how you discuss things! You're always so calm and polite which is something I appreciate a lot!). I'd value your input on how we might be able to put a stop to a lot of anti behavior if you have any c:

I’m very glad you’ve enjoyed my blog!

Unfortunately, there’s no way to stop anti behavior. The joke is: we’re allowed to ship and they’re allowed to hate ships; we’re allowed to write dark fanfiction and they’re allowed to loathe it. Until somebody is doing something illegal we can’t actually stop them.

However, we can limit anti influence on fandom spaces. And I don’t think it’s easy, or I wouldn’t have a blog like this.

The primary public goal of anti-shippers and anti-darkfic communities are to obliterate ‘bad’ ships and dark content in fandom spaces.  All public action taken with the intent of having their views communicated to shippers/creators of dark content are aimed to either drive them out of fandom or make them see the light of their evil ways. Their social power mainly comes from generating negative emotions in fandom, and I think there are 3 primary forces:

  • Fear: anti-shippers have proven that they are willing to go to great lengths to force fandom members to bend to their standards, including tag invasion, public shaming, dogpiling, callouts (true or false or a combination thereof), misgendering/erasing orientations, general and targeted online harassment including suicide baiting and wishing for physical harm, verbal harassment, verbal intimidation, reporting falsified TOS violations, and in extreme cases doxxing, false reports to authorities, destruction of property, threats of violence, and actual assault. Understandably this makes potential targets want to avoid notice so that they’re not ‘next’, reducing creative output.
  • Anger: nothing gets people talking about you like anger. People like to complain, and that spreads reports of anti-shipping attacks further (which spreads fear). Shippers increasingly dwell on their anger and frustration over antishippers, taking focus away from creating fanworks.
  • Exhaustion: being afraid and angry all the time will take a lot out of a person.  Self-doubt makes it even worse. Antis keep the pressure on with a constant stream of negativity and double down by questioning the motives, moral integrity, and social awareness of bad shippers and dark content creators.  Exhaustion cuts creative output just as effectively, if not more so, than fear and anger. People will create out of spite with the first two emotions, but exhaustion makes people want to leave and find something less tiring to enjoy.

So I think the best way to cut the power and influence that antis have is by shutting them and their rhetoric out of fandom spaces.  this looks like:

Block antis. Block all antis. block virulent negativity. Block even antis that hate the same ships you hate. Keep yourself away from the nastiness and also protect yourself from their notice (if you block them they can’t see or reblog your posts as easily).

Avoid black and white ‘discourse’. Don’t dwell on social debates about purity and the moral implications of your ships or fictional content. Be selective about the meta you indulge. Remember that nuance exists. Don’t publicly argue with people who refuse to see nuance, spreading their nonsense further.

Don’t fight fire with fire. Don’t borrow anti arguments to prove what hypocrites they are or use anti logic to explain why ships are bad (e.g. ‘antis say that x/y is bad b/c x is older than y and they call that pedophilia.  but antis ship y/z, even though they fight all the time; that’s abuse!’)

Ignore hate messages. If people send you hate for your ships or creations, ignore and delete them. it makes you a boring target if you don’t react and cuts the hate significantly. (This won’t work unless the main goal is getting a rise out of you. In the case of a targeted hate campaign, the goal is usually pleasing the instigator of the hate campaign, and reacting or not reacting won’t make a difference. :( )

Surround yourself with creative content and positivity. Curate your dash and social media circles to be mostly, if not entirely, fandom positivity focused and about creating new content instead of complaining about bad content or bad fandom behavior.

Spread positivity. If you have the energy, try to share the things that make you happy. Recommend fanfics, comment on fanart, talk about your favorite headcanons.

If you’re like me and you can’t entirely ignore shitty things that happen in fandom, create a separate space away from your main fandom space to indulge your salt. that way you can walk away and take breaks. (I tend to find salt begets more salt.)

last thing may not work for everyone: be kind and/or civil when interacting with antis. There’s of course no obligation to be nice to people who antagonize you, but I find that in general being kind in response to people being jerks gives them room to relax, stop being defensive, and talk openly. Most individual antis aren’t that different from shippers; they just have different ideas of what a safe, comfortable fandom space looks like. (And if they refuse to stop being a jerk, ignore/block them.)

that’s my two cents, which, as usual, looks more like 2 dollars. I hope it’s helpful.

At no point would I necessarily label my political convictions as “collectivistic”, as in the opposite of “individualistic”. Randian individualists have a habit of painting the true political spectrum as a rift between the individual and the group, but it’s an oversimplification. Maybe this might make sense in a classless society where free neighbors were trying to strike a balance where the community respects the individual and the individual respects the community. But as it stands now, class divisions – that is, the rift between all-producing laboring classes and parasitic ruling classes – are more important determinants of political shifts. If you are right-wing, you generally favor the established order whereby elite ruling classes arbitrarily own the workplaces and resources and utilities, while the laboring classes sell their capacity to work so they can simply make ends meet; if you are left-wing, you typically favor an overhaul of this order, in effect turning those workplaces and resources and utilities over to common democratic management. While Randian individualists certainly fall into the former rightist camp, you might notice that there’s nothing particularly, well, individual-nourishing about that setup. When the average person lacks ownership stake and input over the things they build and contribute to, and furthermore lacks comfortable livelihood, they fall short of their potential.

With this in mind, the collectivization of the means of production and resources, the goal of the communist project, does not presuppose a suppression of the creative individual. Seeing as self-actualization is a privilege overwhelmingly reserved for those who have sufficient access to resources, I only see an upsurge in plurality following the establishment of a socialist order. What center of ruling class domination will be pumping out cultural hegemony to conform to? What hierarchical market economy will there be to sink or swim in?

Take the famous line from the Manifesto: “The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Actualized individuals create healthy societies. Now swap the two: “The free development of all is the condition for the free development of each.” Common democracy in the social complements individualized autonomy in the personal.

Terry Eagleton takes it a step further: “If human beings are self-realizing creatures, then they need to be at liberty to fulfill their needs and express their powers. But if they are also social animals, living alongside other self-expressive beings, they need to prevent an endless, destructive clash of powers. This, in fact, is one of the most intractable problems of liberal society, in which individuals are supposed to be free, but free among other things to be constantly at one another’s throats. Communism, by contrast, organizes social life so that individuals are able to realize themselves in and through the self-realization of others…In this sense, socialism does not simply reject liberal society, with its passionate commitment to the individual. Instead, it builds on and completes it. In doing so, it shows how some of the contradictions of liberalism, in which your freedom may flourish only at the expense of mine, may be resolved. Only through others can we finally come into our own. This means an enrichment of individual freedom, not a diminishing of it. It is hard to think of a finer ethic. On a personal level, it is known as love.”

The starry-eyed daydreaming kid in me always gets chills whenever I come across descriptions of leftist thought like that. That’s why my main blog is titled “One with the All” – I see political endgame and spiritual truth as a situation where the individual empowers the larger whole and the larger whole empowers the individual. Only a massive overhaul can achieve this, finally giving people direct influence over the institutions they build and contribute to. For the One and the All to achieve actualization, we must abandon class.

-Daividh

anonymous asked:

Are you capable of seeing that antifas actions and claimed funding make you more fascists then the people you attack and claim to be said fascists? If you all started wearing brown shirts while protesting and inciting riots you'd be another page in history.

We’d normally ignore a message this fucking ignorant, Anon, but today we decided to use your bullshite to clear up a few things:

1) Fascism doesn’t have a super-clear definition but if it definitely includes some or all of the following: ultra-nationalism; the promotion of racist hatred & scapegoating; a extreme fetishization of violence as the ultimate legitimate political mechanism; organized mass murder; the ownership of government by one individual or a small group; prioritizing money over the lives of people; anti-individualism; and the destruction of civilization.

Maybe you know something we don’t, Anon, but we don’t recall antifa ever promoting ultra-nationalism; racist scapegoating, promoting violence as the supreme political mechanism, organizing mass murder, advocating for the ownership of government by one person or a tiny elite cabal, prioritizing money over people, anti-individualism; or ultimately destroying civilization.  Maybe you should actually read about fascism before you make baseless accusations.

2) Antifa’s actions are fascist?  We’ve been blogging about antifa for nearly three years now; we have nearly 4000 posts up; yet we can’t seem to find a single one that has any of the characteristics of fascism.

3) “Claimed funding?”  WTF conspiracy pill did you swallow?  What are you even talking about?  State your claim clearly, then back it with actual evidence and credible sources or GTFO.

4) Oh, maybe you’re all upset because antifascists will defend their communities from people attempting to advocate for the forced removal and genocide of members of those communities, huh?  Too fucking bad, asshat.  We have the right to defend ourselves and our communities from people that are advocating, organizing, and promoting violence against community members.