Neuro-anarchism, to all you anarchists on WP!

Post Reply New Topic

Authoritarianism encourages (or indeed, in extreme cases, forces) conformism. For example, conservatives, who are on the authoritarian right, often oppose LGBT rights, immigration etc. (i.e. people who are not like them) and usually are against new forms of expression and the counterculture because they cut against the grain of 'normal' society. Theocracies often punish those who act or think differently (for example, the recent case in Iran of the partying youth who were arrested). This, I believe, is because an important component of authoritarianism is the idea that a doctrine (ideology or religion) can be imposed from above, which means that people have to follow it, and act the same. Anyone acting differently or being different is a 'threat'.
This, I believe, is an easy attitude to internalise, probably because humans already have it: the herd mentality. Authoritarianism encourages, deliberately or otherwise, the herd mentality.
The idea that we should all conform to a standard is harmful to autistic people, partly because we see little need to but mostly because we think differently, see things differently to NTs, so, in many situations, we can't. How many of you have felt pressure to conform to expectations but fell short, or did not know what those expectations were? How many of you have been ostracised, picked on, or have been unable to integrate with your social group in any other way because of this? How many of you have experienced depression, anxiety because of that? How many of you feel awful about yourselves when autism is treated like a terrible disease? I can answer 'yes' to all of those.
Anarchists are of course, by definition, fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism. We (particularly left-anarchists) also usually want to allow creativity to flourish in a free environment where the statement "to each according to his need" really applies, considering that everyone has different needs (evidence: link, link, link). Encouraging tolerance and diversity is very common for anarchists (evidence: link, link, link).
Why, then, can we not introduce neurodiversity to anarchism? There's a green anarchism, a feminist anarchism, and even a queer anarchism. If the LGBT community can have a branch of anarchism fighting for their rights, we can! Our goals can be to abolish authoritarian "you must conform" systems, challenge the herd mentality, and encourage autism acceptance and move towards an accepting society in which everyone's special needs are met and everyone's abilities and talents are encouraged, not suppressed by hierarchical systems.
So, what do you think?

I agree with the overall approach.

And I have struggled with depression. In fact, I think we at WrongPlanet can potentially develop a good source of health information on depression. We can't be insta-friends with fellow members, that's too much to promise. But we can be good, helpful, and decent colleagues and that's something.

But . . . and here's where I might disagree. I participated with several peace and anti-war groups during the build-up in 1990 and fighting of the first Gulf War in 1991. And believe me people reading this, I'm well aware that it was a popular war. Anyway, to a large extent, I found the activist groups hierarchical, skittish about people who are 'weird' (I have a speech difference and I wanted to talk philosophy), pulling radical credentials, trying crafty maneuvers, at times just plain disorganized---and in general just mirroring the rest of society.

I don't know how to get anything done without an organization, a hierarchy, and a strong personality at the top. Whatever the goal is for the group, the members will need to conform to whatever the leader thinks is important. S/he will be tolerant of things s/he understands, and less tolerant of people who don't fit in. We are all limited and our education is a work-in-progress. Even in groups created by and for autistics, there are rules about things like "autistic space."
Organizing a bunch of Aspies has been likened to "herding cats," but is not impossible.
Organized anarchy, on the other hand, is self-contradictory.

I think all the sub-anarchisms need to be merged. I can't think of a legitimate reason for any given anarchist to not support the sub-anarchisms. Given that anarchism is marginalized as it is, I don't see what good it does to have all these different currents ? they just add philosophical baggage, and anarchists needs to focus on doing rather than philosophizing.

^Unite under the banner of the One True Anarchism??

It sounds interesting. At the least, it could get other anarchists thinking about neurodiversity.

^That's the idea.
Frankly, I am surprised that anarchists aren't already thinking about neurodiversity, given their total support for other minority rights.

Sounds to me based on what you described alone that Anarchism conforms to something and in and of itself is a form of conformism. It's a more loose form of conformism in that you have the choice versus where Authoritarianism does not give you a choice. In any case you fail to see the fallacies of conformism. If you feel the need to submit to a group whether it be your own free will or forcibly then you sacrifice your individuality.

Now my response is purely based off of what you said about Anarchism. I've skimmed over the subject in the past but I can't quite say I have the concept of Anarchism down yet.




Let me add this:

I've watched those video, especially "The Case Against Hierarchy" and although I agree there is in fact a hierarchical system I disagree that this is through malice as the video implies. I think there is a huge gap on what some THINK Anarchism is and what it really is. I'd be careful what sources you are learning from. That video and all of that person's videos are dangerous and contains many lies.

I want to take the moment to address this so-called ?Capitalism is Slavery?. That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact Capitalism was born out of the French Revolution to overthrow the Monarch to establish Liberalism and Capitalism. How is that slavery? At the time people were free to produce and own their own goods as well as free to choose what they will and won?t do with those goods. Now there comes a point were in order to improve production additional labor is required. In those instances there are agreed upon methods by multiple individuals as to how to achieve their end goal. Being that there are more than one person involved in the production of goods there runs the risk of a hierarchical structure. That is where business relations come along. Do we want to be partners or will we both agree that you?ll be the owner and I?ll be the worker. Again this becomes a business relationship and is agreed upon by all parties. Government?s role in a Capitalistic system is to protect individual liberties. So let?s say I go into business with another guy under contractual agreement that I get an agreed upon share of the goods. Then later my business partner gets greedy and take more than agreed upon. Then Government comes in to correct the wrong. This hierarchical business structure in no way defines a social structure which is what was accomplish with the Monarchy. So I fail to see the link between Capitalism and slavery.

Let?s say the Monarch was overthrown for an Anarchy system. Based on the information that we know about that society what would it look like. Well we know that there were aristocrats that were far right thinkers and very conservative about the Monarch ways then there were those on the left that worked hard and hard but barely earned a dime. So now we dissolved this system and now what? We all have freedoms right and left to do whatever we want to do. Great sounds hunky dory! So let?s say I was once a peasant working for scrap and I want to expand production. Well I can enter a business relationship with this aristocrat on agreed upon terms right. After all we live in a free society and no one can ever do us wrong but the government. Then my aristocrat friend decides to be greedy and take more than agreed upon. ?Wait you can?t do that!? So who is to stop him from this injustice?

After a bit more research I feel that those with Liberal views and those Anarchy views seem to agree on individual liberties they start to disagree on the social justice part. Liberals feel that there should be a government elected body for social justice while Anarchist believe in neighborly on the fly justice. What if the accused was wrongly accused who will protect him? What if there are public bias? This would give free reign to small Tyrannies.

In essence the majority is unavoidable and there needs to be some sort of government body to protect the minority.

Here is a good source of information:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/sect2.htm

Even in that link Capitalism and Liberalism are considered Individualism. If you have to prefix anarchism then it contradicts anarchy.

If the establishment of capitalism resulted in more freedom or different kinds of freedoms than those that were present under a monarchy, that does not imply that that capitalism is not akin to slavery. Relative freedom is not absolute freedom.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism as it stands in the world operates by the few monopolizing resources that were once entirely free and selling them back to us: land, water, etc. If you want to see how capitalism is slavery, compare it to the life of some hunter-gatherers who do what they want with their day (rather than selling their labor), freely go about collecting or hunting the food they need rather than relying on someone else to provide it for them, and establishing homes where they like without having to bother with the hassle of property rights claimed by someone who's forbears arbitrarily seized large tracts of land and called it their own.

The example of the hunter IS liberalism! Wow you seriously do not know what you are talking about. We don't live in a Capitalistic world today. What we have now is Corporatism aka Crony Capitalism. If you you've read wealth of nations you would know that monopolies go against the core Capitalistic beliefs. Please educate yourself before you start talking because you are only redistributing false information.

I have no idea what that sentence means. Liberalism is a sociopolitical ideology; hunter-gathers are not a sociopolitical ideology. Furthermore, I didn't say that anything wasn't liberalism, so I don't understand why you are telling me that something "is liberalism," as if to contradict me.



You forgot to mention which part was false.

Here is where you are distorting thing and inserting false premis. Hunters under both a sociopolitical liberalism AND anarchy society can freely produce their own goods without being subjected to labor. Don't try to distinguish a hunter from liberalism because the two aren't even in the same category. I even gave you a history lesson of how liberalism came to be. Why would peasant rise against the monarch only to re-establish the same tyranny they worked so hard against. You seem to have a socialist mindset and think things should be given to you. Why should the hunter who worked so hard for his food be entitled to give it to others? Doesn't that restrict the liberties of the hunter? And let's say the hunter is a little bit more able than others and can acquire more. Still he has his liberties to choose do do what he pleases with what he worked so hard for. I like how you bring up "relative" freedom vs absolute freedom. You are trying to make the spin that those who are more able have more freedoms than those who aren't. Truth is able or not you have the freedom to work for your food and that is a fact under liberalism. I have given you a history lesson and I've even provided source. So unless you can come to the table with sources as well and make a more valid argument instead of fabricating lies for your own personal agenda then this debate is over.

WTF? You are paranoid, aggressive, and don't seem to have any idea about what the point of my post was. You keep mentioning liberalism and I said not. a. single. thing. about liberalism in my post. If there is a debate afoot, you are having it with yourself.

Capitalism is a byproduct of liberalism. To criticize capitalism is to criticize the fundamental concepts of liberalism. Usually the two go hand in hand. No I am not paranoid are you? I just love to have a healthy and logical debate and I am willing to admit when I am wrong. Unfortunately you don't seem to be heading that route. Pitty!

Source the information to your claim. Explain to me with the source provided that Capitalism is slavery otherwise this sounds like a fairy tale.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phQSGYVf6w0[/youtube]

Capitalism is out of control, and is in the process of transforming democracies into plutocracies. Forbes 2014 Billionaire List notes that relatively few people are hoarding over 6 trillion $$. This up considerably from last year. This money needs to be reintroduced into economies worldwide. The welfare costs to countries pale compared to how expensive it is to support billionaires. They ain't making cash in their basements. We give it to them.

I think there is a problem regarding terminology and meaning; ideas of what anarchism, socialism etc actually mean seem to vary wildly. It is very convenient for authority that people generally have a fuzzy understanding of these concepts. Looking back at when I was in school, there was such constrained use of language and ideas that I now see it as a kind of indoctrination away from ideas of social change. It is easy to see how mindlessly the status quo can be enforced and people so blinded to their own and others problems due to their early (lack of) education.

I think green, feminist and lgbt anarchism are not useful categories; feminism, for example, has a lot in common with anarchism as it views patriarchy as anarchism views the state, but to call something feminist anarchism seems confusing as, in a sense, a feminist is already an anarchist and surely a stateless society would not necessarily be a feminist one. I think neurodiversity is anarchist in the same sense and to call something neuro-anarchism just adds to the confusion. Maybe I'm being too literal. I suppose it's more empowering to say "I'm a neuro-anarchist" than "I'm in favour of neurodiversity".