Post by wombat on Apr 8, 2015 3:35:00 GMT -5
I just listened to FRR77 and am responding to grounding in relation to egoism. First, there is the identification of anarchist, which starts as a sort of grounding. As has been seen historically, egoists of the pro-market persuasion have existed. Stirner is not a new author, nor is Nietzsche and we've seen their ideas adopted a great deal in the past in many variety of experiments.
However, this railing against reification is hardly a part of these types of egoism. Perhaps strict contemporary Stirner readers have taken this mantle up, but most readings of egoists a century ago I've read hardly meet this rather strong criticism. Getting rid of false ideas, false conceptions, certainly. But even in this episode, they railed against Goldman, who identified as influenced by individualists and egoists while also taking up the mantle of communism. So Bellamy, correctly does something that many earlier egoists weren't really doing. I do know of a handful of egoist/nihilists from that era were swinging rather strongly and they were republished from obscurity in recent times in books like "Enemies of Society" and "Disruptive Elements" IIRC.
Reading Jason Adams, Lawrence Jarach and Wolfi Landsteicher, all hold views I also hold some affinity to. They would agree with your striking at reification. Jarach went as far as to write a couple essays taking on anti-primitivist authors and demand a critically thinking anarcho-primitivism. Jarach probably could be seen in the same boat as Bob Black, not an AP, but in favor of it. However Wolfi Landstreicher is the only author which took strong issue with rewilding, primitivism, the definitions of domestication, wildness and so on. Wolfi Landstreicher is also the only author which mocked anarcho-primitivist views IIRC. I would think that Bellamy could see why it is easy to confuse Wolfi Landstreicher as the way egoists think given that he wrote that Egoist Encyclopedia and many other thoughts in regards to egoism. However, I think we all can all see that Wolfi's criticisms hold little water and were more positional, defending his semantic alteration attempts to create negative definitions for anarchist primitivist concepts.
I can feel the frustrations on grounding. Those that want to just decide things individually are doing something normal. What they do doesn't define what they are. Anti-civ does give this feeling of unlimited choice and it makes sense for egoists to be attracted to this as an identification before anarcho-primitivist. But if egoists are as honest about reification as is suggested, this unlimited choice is a reification. Agriculture is temporary and limiting, which Bellamy is aware of. There are methods to practice permaculture or feralculture which seem rather sound. The actual truth could be far more limited than is perceived, especially given the diversity of habitats people may be found in. I'd have to learn much here though before I could speak more strongly about it.
So in a way, we are all anarcho-primitivists in much the same way that everyone is an egoist (from an egoist's perspective). The ones that self identify as anarcho-primitivists are the ones that are aware of our domestication and the limitations of immediate return, so we look at the world and what has domesticated us and what that domestication has created. We look for others like us and try to figure out how we can change our personal situation and perhaps consider a way to rebel and build community at the same time? At least, that is how I'm seeing things.