Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

Seeing real need?

I think back on my life seeing how much time I have put into thinking about things/or wants I believed I needed in the moment, instead of on what I need to do to be a person of quality. I have stopped such mindless indifference and seek lasting things only an aware humanity can produce I see the true need to be a person of quality, not in one thing but as a way I live my life. I want a value-drivenSeeing real need?

I think back on my life seeing how much time I have put into thinking about things/or wants I believed I needed in the moment, instead of on what I need to do to be a person of quality. I have stopped such mindless indifference and seek lasting things only an aware humanity can produce I see the true need to be a person of quality, not in one thing but as a way I live my life. I want a value-driven life of meaning, not simply thinking about things/or wants I believed I needed in the moment.

We rise by helping each other.

Godless because I think, Humanist because I feel, and Anarchist because shit needs to change!

Equality is a virtue, that ethical prosocial behavior, we do to honor the dignity of others.

Equality, to me, is not a status one must earn, it is a behavior all deserve.

One Word

If I could only offer one word, the last one you heard in your life, would I really spend it on a word that was mean, hateful, or vicious? Would my words change in my life if there was a limit on them too? I can only express my thoughts for such a short time here on earth, so I see, that I must pick my words much more carefully. I just wish to be a person of value, with a high ethical character, who is guided by thoughts of compassion and behaviors of kindness. Love is my one word.

“Damien, you are an anarchist so you don’t like rules.”

I am fine with rules that are universal ethics guided and dignity respecting, confirmed by the strong acknowledging of everyone as equal in freedom and rights. And the most foundational right is one’s self-ownership/body-autonomy/self-sovereignty due to all fellow human beings. What I am against is rulers or any non-universal ethics guided and dignity respecting laws.

Anarchist Outreach?

I do anarchist outreach to non-anarchists, I have had non-anarchists share and like my stuff, even some of my anarchist stuff as I explain the values and thinking in a way they feel they can relate to and thus become more open to anarchism.

I want to help bring anarchist thinking to the world. I have inspired several people to become anarchists and this is a goal I hope for. I appreciate others’ thoughts and questions as well as because many people have errors in understanding anarchism.

I am trying to make them more like us anarchists and why others would want to look into anarchism. Anarchism for the win. We rise by helping each other.

#AntiCapitalism

Never underestimate the deep levels of malevolent greed the wealthy have and commonly act on, at the clear detriment of the Earth and Humanity. Heartlessness is only their appetizer. If humanity were a sinking ship, they would only save those who could pay the most… Our Earth is being killed and humanity is starved to the edge of death. But they only ask, “What are the profits?” The stolen “labor-value” due to so many…

“People feel more empathy for people they perceive to be like them, and less empathy for people they see as different.”

I see people for who they are, fellow dignity beings, just like me…

54799427_629473220799125_1052970022126747648_n

“Damien, you need to find a different word than “libertarian”. That term has been corrupted and co-opted by the right-wing trying to disguise themselves as “libertarians”, rather than the fascists they actually are.” – Commentor

My response, “Libertarian” was considered a leftist thinking from the 1800s, and only rightist in 1950 mainly limited to America but later spread elsewhere. I call myself an anarchist-socialist or anarcho-humanist, I am anti-authoritarianism.

“I think by and large Eugenia is right that the term was co-opted by the right and has been distorted. I however refuse to let them have it. The term libertarian is supposed to imply a value of freedom and autonomy and right-wingers will never stop being dishonest.” – Cory Johnston(he/him) @Skepticallefty

Hate is a thing we find everywhere?

Hate is a thing we find everywhere, at times in one’s own mind, where we forget to care. Hate left unchecked can entangle our reason and stifles our sense of care. The wall of capitalism greed is crushing humanity. Thus, I justifiably hate capitalism. But this hate of oppression and inequality is not a hate of people, we must maintain the difference.

I hate abuse!

Often the scars others make in a moment, we end up having to suffer through for a lifetime.

Sing a Beautiful Song

Here we all sit amongst the peoples of the world, yes among the good and bad. May I be held amongst the chorus of the good a goal all champions of humanity should. Yes, may we all see that the song of our lives is but an expression of theatrical performance that like musical notes fill the narrative voice in our behaviors as well as with the people around us. Yes, the ones we interact and the ones we only secondarily influence feel this music of actions may it be a beautiful song of thoughtfulness, compassion, understanding, support, kindness, and love. Peace and harmony are better championed in thoughtfulness, understanding, and kindness than by force, false impression, and thoughtlessness. When we fix our behaviors to the positive, we often reap the reward of adding positiveness all around us. This set of positive behaviors empowers our efforts to fix or at least better deal with the troubling situations of life.

I did not turn atheist until 35 and around that time I realized, that not just my religious beliefs were a lie, but my morality was wrong as well. And a thinking change occurred in me, to where I went from a strong rightist to a strong far leftist anarchist socialist.

We must not let the negative hateful people change us, so we are like them, to do so would be like we have lost before we start as then what are we fighting to protect if not a kinder world where we all can live in peace?

I see, if everyone had to earn my kindness I would be kind to few, rather I see I have an honor in how I am, and how I behave, and I don’t easily give up my honor as a person of value. We must come to see that education is both a light of hope and a path to our freedom.

Life requires we learn and understand, because what we don’t understand we too often come to fear, and what we fear we often learn to hate, and that which we hate we often seek to destroy.

Thus, we need to learn so we can overcome the dangers of fear. I desire to give back to help others and I wish to make a difference in others’ lives. I wish to bring about change in myself and others. I wish to be bold in what I believe in and to match my actions with my words.

When were you Radicalized?

I turned atheist, then inspired my brother to become an atheist, but everyone else in my family is a devoted Christian; even working in/with churches, being pastors/youth pastors, etc. I was radicalized when I turned atheist in 2006 at 35 years old and started thinking for myself. I was a rightist republican Christian, now an atheist leftist socialist anarchist. Every anarchist finds their own reason for being anarchist, for me it was a deeply ethical choice. Conservative? No thanks, I quit that cult of selfishness. And news flash Democrats are actually on the right spectrum of political thinking, but in America, they are lied to and think they are on the left yet many look unfavorably to actual leftists. What I mean by “my vote does not matter” is that the two political parties are wealthy elites that do more for themselves, big donors, powerful, wealthy, big business, lobbyists, but if not too inconvenient they may work a little for the rest of us at about 3% of our interests. I want an educational evolution as revolution, but when you make humanity hindered, and peaceful revolution impossible, it may make violent revolution enviable.

No longer an Unthoughtful Afterworldsman?

“Damien, why is atheism a life-freeing revelation as you state?” – Questioner

My response, No more sin, and a new connectedness to this world, and all people as I was no longer an unthoughtful afterworldsman/afterlife-thinker.

Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.

“Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think, by looking at more than 20 years’ worth of data answers a simple question: Does the government represent the people? Well, No! Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. It’s a vicious cycle of legalized corruption. As the cost of winning elections explodes, politicians of both political parties become ever more dependent on the tiny slice of the population who can bankroll their campaigns. Our elected officials spend 30-70% of their time in office fundraising for the next election. When they’re not fundraising, they have no choice but to make sure the laws they pass keep their major donors happy — or they won’t be able to run in the next election. Until it’s addressed, corruption will continue to block progress on every issue.” ref

“More than half of those in Congress are millionaires. Much of the wealth in Congress is concentrated at the top. The top 10 percent of the wealthiest lawmakers have three times more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.” ref

Federal cases against recent members of Congress

“These are federal cases against current or former federal lawmakers:

Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska – Found guilty in 2022 of three felonies in a case that centered on campaign contributions.

Former Rep. TJ Cox, a Democrat from California – Still awaiting trial after his 2022 indictment, including for fraudulent campaign contributions.

Former Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California – Sentenced to 11 months in prison for misusing campaign funds, but later pardoned by Trump.

Former Rep. Chris Collins, a Republican from New York – Sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading, but later pardoned by Trump.

Former Rep. Corrine Brown, a Democrat from Florida – Served more than two years for setting up a false charity.

Former Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas – Sentenced to 10 years in prison for multiple felonies including fraud and money laundering, but pardoned by Trump after serving part of his sentence.

Former Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York – Sentenced to 21 months in prison for sexting with a minor.

Former Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Pennsylvania – Sentenced to 10 years in prison for racketeering, fraud and money laundering.

Former Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York – Pleaded guilty and sentenced to eight months in prison for tax evasion. Attempted to run again for Congress.

Former Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican from Arizona – Sentenced to three years for corruption. Pardoned by Trump after he served time.

Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey – Acquitted by a judge and other charges dismissed after a jury deadlocked in a bribery case.

Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat from Illinois – Sentenced to 30 months in prison for misusing campaign funds.

Former Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska – Conviction by jury for lying on ethics forms was later set aside over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Former Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana – Sentenced to 13 years for corruption and soliciting bribes. There was video of him taking $100,000 from an African official. Served multiple years in prison, but many of the charges were later vacated by a judge based on a US Supreme Court decision.

Former Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio – Sentenced to 30 months after a guilty plea for corruption tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a Republican from California – Sentenced to eight years in prison after a guilty plea for bribery. Later pardoned by Trump.

Former Rep. James Traficant, a Democrat from Ohio – Sentenced to eight years in prison for corruption after defending himself during trial. Was later expelled from the House.

Two Republican governors and two Democratic governors have been convicted in federal courts in recent decades:

Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, was convicted for bribery and corruption. But the US Supreme Court changed the rules in corruption and bribery cases when it threw out the case against McDonnell.

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, was convicted for trying to sell his power to appoint a replacement to Barack Obama’s Senate seat. His sentence was later commuted by Trump.

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted by a jury of bribery and corruption and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, was convicted on corruption charges after an FBI sting.” ref

“Democrats Decried Dark Money. Then They Won With It in 2020. “Dark money” became a dirty word, as the left warned of the threat of corruption posed by corporations and billionaires that were spending unlimited sums through loosely regulated nonprofits, which did not disclose their donors’ identities. Then came the 2020 election. The scale of secret spending is such that, even as small donors have become a potent force in politics, undisclosed money dwarfed the 2020 campaign fund-raising of the President race.” ref

Money, power, and the influence of ordinary people in American politics

Americans have long believed that major political donors and special interests have too much influence on politics and that ordinary people have too little influence. Most see voting as the best way for average Americans to impact the direction of the country. However, the belief that there is too much money in politics is widespread. References to the influence of money and concerns about corruption are some of the most frequently cited critiques of the political system, and many Americans see a monetary gain as a reason why most elected officials seek office, to begin with. When it comes to the decisions made by members of Congress, large shares of Americans say major donors, lobbyists, and special interests have too much influence. By contrast, just 9% of adults say the people in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence; that compares with 70% who say the people in their districts have too little influence (19% say they have about the right amount). Americans’ views on which groups have influence on the decisions made by members of Congress are similar across party lines:

Around eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (83%) say people who donate a lot of money to campaigns have too much influence on decisions made by members of Congress. A nearly identical share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (80%) say the same.
Majorities in both parties also say lobbyists, special interests, and large employers in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence.
Relatively small shares in both parties say people in lawmakers’ districts have too much influence. Nearly identical majorities of Republicans (72%) and Democrats (71%) say they have too little influence.” ref

Anarchism is about non-coercion, non-hierarchy, voluntary associations, and equal humanity.

I feel anarchism is grounded in ethics. So of course it should be part of one’s entire life. Even my relationship style is relationship anarchism. “Relationship anarchy is the application of anarchist principles to intimate relationships. Its values include autonomy, anti-hierarchical practices, anti-normativity, and community interdependence. RA is explicitly anti-amatonormative and anti-mononormative and is commonly, but not always, non-monogamous. This is distinct from polyamory, solo poly, swinging, and other forms of “dating”, which may include structures such as amatonormativity, hierarchy of intimate relationships, and autonomy-limiting rules. It has also been interpreted as a new paradigm in which closeness and autonomy are no longer considered to create dilemmas within a relationship.” ref

I was told by an anarchist nihilist that my being an anarchist humanist made me “Hitler.” I shit you not… What is wrong with people nowadays?

HUMANISM: to me, is relatively the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as posable and to do good whenever one can.

How do I feel about Anarchist Nihilism?

I am an axiologist (value theorist/anti-nihilism persuasion) and do not value nihilism and see reasons to disvalue it. I am against unjust chaos supporters/nihilism as they are often anti-humanist as well as anti-civilization.

“Anarcho-Nihilism (AnNihil or AnNil) is an Individualist Anarchist ideology who believes that nothing at all contains objective and fixed meaning or essence, and as such, society, humanism, the state, morals, truth, and dogmas have no basis at all and should be rejected. They see the negation of these constructs as liberation from them. e sees government, family, and law as false constructs that have no real reason to govern the life of the individual, and thinks that the individual should reject false restraints. Anarcho-Nihilism comes from Anarchism and Nihilism, that takes from apathy for authority from anarchism, and negation of all social constructs from nihilism. Modern anarcho-nihilists belongs to post-left anarchists. This ideology has little or no praxis in real life currently, but has modern theorists are Aragorn! and Serafinski (author of Blessed is the Flame). Not much is known about them, as ideology is currently popular in internet, rather than in politics from different reasons, like avoiding authority, organized political action.” ref

“As main Anarcho-Nihilism tenets of ideology, can be considered:

Pure Negation
Opposition towards society
Anti-civilization
Opposition towards every political system, abolition of politics
Anti-utopianism
Anti-economy (including work)
Opposition towards religion, family, tradition, and morals” ref

Anti-Humanism and Nihilism

“Criticism of humanism as over-idealistic began in the 19th century. For Friedrich Nietzsche, humanism was nothing more than an empty figure of speech – a secular version of theism. Max Stirner expressed a similar position in his book The Ego and Its Own, published several decades before Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche argues in Genealogy of Morals that human rights exist as a means for the weak to constrain the strong; as such, they do not facilitate the emancipation of life, but instead deny it. Stirner is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, and individualist anarchism. Stirner, whose main philosophical work was The Ego and Its Own, is credited as a major influence in the development of nihilism, existentialism, and post-modernism as well as individualist anarchism, post-anarchism, and post-left anarchy. He also influenced illegalists, feminists, nihilists, and bohemians, as well as fascists, right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Although Stirner was opposed to communism for the same reasons he opposed capitalism, humanism, liberalism, property rights, and nationalism, seeing them as forms of authority over the individual and as purveyors of ideologies he could not reconcile himself with, he has also influenced many anarcho-communists and post-left anarchists.” ref, ref

“Alas, I’ve obviously, overestimated the common ground I can find with esoteric anarcho-nihilists/post-civ folks. lol” – 𝐍𝐢𝐧𝐚 @moonlit_misfit

My response, The common ground with most, if not all nihilism (anti-value theorists), often doesn’t exist for me. If you are anti-humanist and anti-civilization you are not on my side and seem to sound like my enemy instead. As an axiologist (value theorist) I am generally anti-nihilism but if they support humanism or, are not anti to humanism, then maybe OK. But likely not.

*Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society.” – Emma Goldman (anarchist revolutionary)

*Anarchy is synonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of exploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether maintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the means of life.” – Errico Malatesta (anarchist propagandist and revolutionary socialist)

Marx said this or that…

Marx sounds cool on some stuff but I am not a Marxist, I am a socialist anarchist (close to Anarcho-Communism). I call myself an Anarcho-Humanist as humanitarian care and universal ethics, guide me.

I am an Anarchist Socialist:

*Anarchist, the radical idea you own yourself…

*Socialist, the radical idea of sharing…

I will not argue on human rights, other people have them and you don’t get to decide them for them. People own themselves, have self-sovereignty, and/or self-stewardship/bodily autonomy! I wish everyone had their self-sovereignty/self-ownership respected thus their rights respected, which would include things like women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc. Call me whatever you want but my heart cries for all the injustice, hate, and harm in the world. Like an oppressive mountain of vileness, it devours the weak or the ones in great need. This wall of suffering is like a suffocating cry for help, but who will listen? We rise by helping each other. We should look up to all who do activism, you, me, and others alike. We are all a flame but together we are a fire that can light the hope for change. There can be no authoritarian anarchism, just not a thing that can happen, once you add authoritarianism, it is no longer anarchism. To me, the biggest delusion people have about their life is believing governments should ever decide what human rights we can have. We are all born equal in freedom, human rights, and dignity. Self-sovereignty/self-ownership is a human right.

Wage slavery and wage theft committed by a selfish society and its capitalism radicalized me to become a socialist anarchist.

I am Responsible?

I am responsible for my thinking and behaviors. I am responsible to care, as I am not alone and others have value. I am responsible to be a better me, and helping to make a better we, so society is a place of human flourishing for all. I am responsible to ensure a higher ethical awareness than the one found in the society I am from, to improve a better humanity for all. I am responsible to make a better world than I was given and I am starting with me because I am responsible. I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one is being resistant to change. I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back. I have an inquisitive mind, so I am an Atheist. I am a compassionate heart, so I am a Humanist. I see people matter and have value, whereas gods don’t matter and are not valuable. This is because people are real, gods are not. Simply, there is no magic to save us. We must help save ourselves and each other. We are all responsible!

Social Anarchism or Socialist Anarchism

We rise by helping each other. I am a socialist anarchist and I welcome all good humans.

“Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees liberty and social equality as interrelated. It advocates for a social revolution to remove oppressive forms of hierarchy, such as capitalism and the state. In their place, social anarchists encourage social collaboration through mutual aid and envision non-hierarchical forms of social organization, such as voluntary associations. Identified with the socialist tradition of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin, social anarchism is often contrasted with individualist anarchism, due to the latter’s criticism of socialism.” ref

“Social anarchism is opposed to all forms of social and political power, hierarchy, and oppression, including (but not limited to) the State and capitalism. Social anarchism sees liberty as interconnected with social equality, and considers the maximization of one to be necessary for the maximization of the other. Social anarchism therefore employs a utilitarian ethics, concerning itself with the well-being of all, as it considers each person’s happiness to be equal to those of others. As such, social anarchism seeks to guarantee equal rights to freedom and material security for all persons. Social anarchism envisions the overthrow of capitalism and the state in a social revolution, which would establish a federal society of voluntary associations and local communities, based on a network of mutual aid. The key principles that form the core of social anarchism include anti-capitalism, anti-statism, and prefigurative politics.” ref

“As an anti-capitalist ideology, social anarchism is opposed to the dominant expressions of capitalism, including the expansion of transnational corporations through globalization. It comprises one of the main forms of socialism, alongside utopian socialism, democratic socialism, and authoritarian socialism. Social anarchism rejects private property, particularly private ownership of the means of production, as the principal source of social inequality. As such, social anarchists typically oppose propertarianism, as they consider it to exacerbate social and economic inequality, suppress individual agency and require the maintenance of hierarchical institutions. Social anarchists argue that the abolition of private property would lead to the development of new social mores, encouraging mutual respect for individual freedom and the satisfaction of individual needs.” ref

“Social anarchism therefore advocates the breaking up of monopolies and the institution of common ownership over the means of production. Instead of capitalist markets, with their profit motives and wage systems, social anarchism desires to organize production through a collective system of worker cooperatives, agricultural communes, and labor syndicates. While social anarchism has rejected the statism of Orthodox Marxism, it has also drawn from Marxist critiques of capitalism, particularly Marx’s theory of alienation. Social anarchists have also been reluctant to adopt the Marxist centering of the proletariat as revolutionary agents, instead identifying the revolutionary potential of the socially excluded segments of society.” ref

“As an anti-statist ideology, social anarchism opposes the concentration of power in the form of a State. To social anarchists, the state is a type of coercive hierarchy designed to enforce private property and to limit individual self-development. Social anarchists reject both centralized and limited forms of government, instead upholding social collaboration as a means to achieve a spontaneous order, without any social contract supplanting social relations. Social anarchists believe that the abolition of the state will lead to greater “freedom, flourishing, and fairness.” ref

“In the place of a state structure, social anarchists desire anarchy, which can be defined as a society without government. Social anarchists oppose the use of a state structure to achieve their goals of a stateless and classless society, as they consider statism to be an inherently corrupting influence. They thus have criticized the Marxist conception of the “dictatorship of the proletariat“, which they consider to be elitist, and have rejected the possibility of a “withering away of the state“. However, some social anarchists such as Noam Chomsky sometimes hold state hierarchy to be preferable to economic hierarchy, and thus lend their support to welfare state programs like universal health care that can improve people’s material conditions.” ref

“Alongside its opposition to political and economic hierarchies, social anarchism upholds prefigurative politics, considering it necessary for the means to achieve anarchy to be consistent with that end goal. Social anarchism prefigures itself through participatory and consensus decision-making, which are capable of generating the diversification of political values, tactics, and identities. Social anarchism, therefore, promotes self-organization and the cultivation of a participatory culture, encouraging individuals to “do things for themselves“. Social anarchism upholds direct action as a means for people to themselves resist oppression, without subordinating their own agency to democratic representatives or revolutionary vanguards. Social anarchists thus reject the political party model of organization, instead preferring forms of flat organization without any fixed leadership.” ref

“Characterised by its loose definition and ideological diversity, social anarchism has lent itself to syncretism, both drawing from and influencing other ideological critiques of oppression, and giving way to a number of different anarchist schools of thought. While early forms of anarchism were largely individualistic, the influence of Left Hegelianism infused anarchism with socialistic tendencies, leading to the constitution of social anarchism. Over time, the question of the economic makeup of a future anarchist society drove the development of social anarchist thought.” ref

“The first school of social anarchism was formulated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose theory of mutualism retained a form of private property, advocating for enterprises to be self-managed by worker cooperatives, which would compensate its workers in labor vouchers issued by “people’s banks“. This was later supplanted by Mikhail Bakunin‘s collectivist anarchism, which advocated for the collective ownership of all property, but retained a form of individual compensation. This finally led to the development of anarcho-communism by Peter Kropotkin, who considered that resources should be freely distributed “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs“, without money or wages.” ref

“Social anarchists also adopted the strategy of syndicalism, which saw trade unions as the basis for a new socialist economy, with anarcho-syndicalism growing to its greatest influence during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. The main division within social anarchism is over the means for achieving anarchy, with philosophical anarchists advocating for peaceful persuasion, while insurrectionary anarchists advocating for “propaganda of the deed“. The former have upheld an anarchist form of education, free from coercion and dogmatism, in order to establish a self-governing society. The latter have participated in rebellions in which they expropriated and collectivized property, and replaced the state with a network of autonomous and federally-linked communes. The aim was to build a socialist society, without using the state, from the bottom-up.” ref

“Principles of social anarchism, such as decentralization, anti-authoritarianism, and mutual aid, later held a key influence on the new social movements of the late-20th century. It was particularly influential within the New Left and green politics, with the green anarchist tendency of social ecology drawing directly from social anarchism. Social anarchist strategies of direct action and spontaneity also formed the foundation of the black bloc tactic, which has become a staple of contemporary anarchism. The social anarchist principle of prefiguration has also been shared by sections anti-state Marxism, particularly that of autonomism. In the contemporary era, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are the dominant tendencies of social anarchism.” ref

Are we really civilized when the richest countries on earth can’t guarantee their citizens will not go hungry or not be housed when one is in great need? But rather to live as wage slaves or potentially homeless, while wealth is squandered on excess and greed (not need) by the capitalist elite and wealthy.

FREEDOM in Relation to Group Status

To me, there is some confusion about FREEDOM, which I see some make about the ontological nature of FREEDOM in relation to group status. They think it’s like being alone uninfringed by anything or anyone allowed to do anything. But how can you profess freedom, when you are alone and completely uninvolved with others when the freedom requested, is from the group, to begin with, whether or not one realizes it? So, it is wrong to think that freedom is like being alone, rather a FREEDOM of this nature is found in the status of a group or in group dynamics where one individual still holds group-sanctioned autonomy thus conceding some limit to one’s freedom rights where they interact with others freedoms. To me, freedom of the social engagement variety involves the reasonable acknowledgment of behavior bubbles of freedom restraint compared to the free flow of unhindered involvement with others’ freedoms. Social freedom in this way involves behaving in a group setting with freedom equally, which by nature has the internal limit to one’s free choice to do something such as violate the rights of another by something like hitting them just because that is how the puncher wanted to live their freedom rights. Which I am sure most agree is a violation of the social equity of respect of the freedom and dignity of others as fellow freedom holders. To conceive of social freedom as if it is like being alone one should stop and think this would mean everyone could do as they wished which would include violating the freedom of everyone else showing social freedom must involve respecting the freedom rights of others even if to do so automatically adds limits to what can be expected from one’s own limits social freedom because one has some reasonable freedom ONLY if others also respect them. Freedom of this social nature is a behavior as much as a right or status.

I am for Non-Aggression?

I am not a pacifist, rather I am for non-aggression, I will engage in or support violence if it is direct self-defense or for other-defense. I don’t believe we should desire to kill even bad people. I don’t believe in the death penalty. I am not a pacifist, rather I am for non-aggression. I think violence should be for self-defense or other-defense. In a justified, measured, and limited way.

My inner struggle, at times, is being a bully, or being a teacher. I am honored to strive to the value hope of teaching, rather than attacking. We can make a difference and this battle over ego is a challenge we all share. I am referring to a “desire” not an action of bullying people who are in error online and are also annoying, harsh, trolling, or bullying me.

Such as seen below:

I am an anti-nationalist and anti-capitalist to my core. I stand in solidarity with humanity, not borders or nations, rather it is the humans from every single plot of dirt they happen to currently live on. We are all one. Don’t let fake borders, just coercive force lines on paper, divided by wars, tell you to hate or love. I am anti-natiomnalism. I am anti-capitalist for several thoughtful reasons but a basic one is that capitalists get rich on the stolen labor value of the workers. Capitalism is predatory and unethical as always petofit above people…

I made the mistake of following a so called anarcho-capitalist, he had only listed “Anarchist”, so I assumed not a capitalist. He said I as a socialist and anarchist was a contradiction, and then said I was a leftist larping as an anarchist, which he assumed has to be limited to only capitalists. What a joke, it is capitalism that is a contradiction to standard/common anarchist thought. And throughout the history of anarchist thinking, it has been a far-leftist expression, to say the least. I blocked him as ancaps are not worth the time to prove them wrong.

“Scholars of anarchism generally highlight anarchism’s socialist credentials and criticize attempts at creating dichotomies between the two. Some scholars describe anarchism as having many influences from liberalism, and being both liberal and socialist but more so. Many scholars reject anarcho-capitalism as a misunderstanding of anarchist principles. While opposition to the state is central to anarchist thought, defining anarchism is not an easy task for scholars, as there is a lot of discussion among scholars and anarchists on the matter, and various currents perceive anarchism slightly differently. Major definitional elements include the will for a non-coercive society, the rejection of the state apparatus, the belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society, and a suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.” ref

ref

Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism

Anarchism Definition from Oxford Languages:

“An·ar·chism = a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. From Greek anarkhos ‘without a chief’ + -ism; later influenced by French anarchisme.”

“Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy. Anarchism advocates for stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, this reading of anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism). Humans lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states, realms, or empires. With the rise of organized hierarchical bodies, skepticism toward authority also rose. Although traces of anarchist ideas are found all throughout history, modern anarchism emerged from the Enlightenment. During the latter half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, the anarchist movement flourished in most parts of the world and had a significant role in workers’ struggles for emancipation.” ref

“Various anarchist schools of thought formed during this period. Anarchists have taken part in several revolutions, most notably in the Paris Commune, the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, whose end marked the end of the classical era of anarchism. In the last decades of the 20th and into the 21st century, the anarchist movement has been resurgent once more, growing in popularity and influence within anti-capitalist, anti-war and anti-globalisation movements. Anarchists employ diverse approaches, which may be generally divided into revolutionary and evolutionary strategies; there is significant overlap between the two. Evolutionary methods try to simulate what an anarchist society might be like, but revolutionary tactics, which have historically taken a violent turn, aim to overthrow authority and the state. Many facets of human civilization have been influenced by anarchist theory, critique, and praxis.” ref

Nature of Anarchism

Anarchism Supports: Autonomy, Civil liberties, Classless society, Cooperation, Direct action, Mutual aid, Stateless society, Voluntary association, Workers’ self-management, etc. ref

Anarchism Rejects: Authoritarianism, Capitalism, Censorship, Centrally planned economy, Coercion, Discrimination, Hierarchy, Imperialism, Paternalism, States, Totalitarianism, etc. ref

“Anarchism is usually grounded in “moral claims” about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building. Anarchism has inspired practical efforts at establishing utopian communities, radical and revolutionary political agendas, and various forms of direct action.” – Andrew Fiala with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

*Morality = “The combination of ethics and anarchism provokes a wide variety of discussion ranging widely along both academic and anarchist traditions. However, the book Anarchism and Moral Philosophy is aimed at a particular audience (academics), specifically ones with a background in moral and ethical philosophy. Some anarchist traditions are inclined to dismiss moral philosophy as merely another dominating ideology, but many of these writers see ethics as an important foundation of anarchist projects and moral theory necessary for finding our away out of state and capitalist societies. This book adds significant material to recent debates on whether or not anarchism provides only a political analysis. These anarchists take questions of ethics as seriously as politics and are not afraid to seek questions and answers from figures ranging from Immanuel Kant to Emma Goldman. Throughout the three parts, the philosophers have to struggle with themes familiar to moral and ethical theory, such as questions of duty and deontology, ethical calculations, and consequentalism and the challenge to these traditional categories by the new system of virtue ethics. A number of scholars within Anarchism and Moral Philosophy investigate the potential of virtue ethics (most explicitly Benjamin Franks, Thomas Swann and Samuel Clark). Franks elaborates the similarities and differences between virtue ethics and the anarchist practice of prefiguration.” ref

“Its conception of morality is based on the ideas set forth in Mutual Aid and later developed in his Ethics. Here they are given special application to “right and wrong” in the business of social living. The job is done with fine feeling and with acute shafts at the shams of current morality. Kropotkin sees the source of all so-called moral ideas in primitive superstitions. The real moral sense which guides our social behavior is instinctive, based on the sympathy and unity inherent in group life. Mutual aid is the condition of successful social living. The moral base is therefore the good old golden rule “Do to others as you would have others do to you in the same circumstances,” – which disposed of the ethics of the shopkeeper’s anarchist customers.” ref

“This natural moral sense was perverted, Kropotkin says, by the superstitions surrounding law, religion, and authority, deliberately cultivated by conquerors, exploiters, and priests for their own benefit. Morality has therefore become the instrument of ruling classes to protect their privileges. He defends the morality of killing for the benefit of mankind – as in the assassination of tyrants – but never for self. Love and hate he regards as greater social forces for controlling wrong-doing than punishment, which he rejects as useless and evil. Account-book morality – doing right only to receive a benefit – he scores roundly, urging instead the satisfactions and joy of “sowing life around you” by giving yourself to the uttermost to your fellowmen. Not of course to do them good, in the spirit of philanthropy, but to be one with them, equal and sharing.” ref

“THE MORAL IDEA BEHIND ANARCHISM has always been somewhat elusive. There have probably been almost as many anarchist moralities as there have been anarchists, but for analysis they can be broadly divided into two categories: the socially positive and the socially negative. The positive anarchist moralities have derived from many sources from William Godwin onwards, but the negative aspects can chiefly be traced to the influence of Max Stirner.” ref

“In his theoretical attempt to escape from bourgeois hypocritical morals Stirner went to remarkable lengths in glorifying crime and denying all that was considered good by the respectable middle-class of his day. This total amorality was quite rational if one began with his premises, since one could owe no allegiances to a society to which one had no responsibilities. Stirner’s disbelief in altruistic actions, and his virtual deification of the individual, was quite consistent with his belief that others were to be regarded as little more than means to the end of personal self-realisation. But this justification of theft, dishonesty, rape and murder is in a sense the very opposite of anarchistic. When we complain that people are being exploited by the ruling-classes we are not only complaining that the people continue to endure it. We are also complaining about exploitation per se; and it is this very act of regarding a person as a means rather than an end that underlies Stirner’s philosophy. The Stirnerite attempt to escape this problem is to postulate a union of egoists, in which “enlightened” self-interest is best served by co-operation, although he prefers to call it competition!” ref

“Godwin, in contrast to Stirner, was a humanitarian, and believed that Justice—the general good—was above individual interest, although be realised that a person’s conception of exactly what was the general good could only be a matter for conscience. He was important in that he denied the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, and asserted that we are born neither good nor bad. He was a moral man, and proclaimed that we have “no right to act anything but virtue and to utter anything but truth”. We can see here the complete disagreement between his idea of the moral anarchist, and Stirner’s affirmation that morality is rubbish. Both of these men made distinct contribution to anarchist thought however, although I think neither of them held views which were completely or distinctively anarchist in the moral sphere. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of anarchism to say that either one had, or could have had, the sole and absolute truth, for it is unlikely that anarchists will ever be absolutely unanimous on anything, especially with respect to morality.” ref

Damien is an anarcho-humanist (basically a socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist as well as rather liberal, progressive, and revolutionary. Damien wants all positive change). Damien understands and utilizes “value” or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify Damien’s humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Damien understands Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

What Inspires Damien’s Anarcho-Humanism?

We are all one connected human family.
No one owns the earth.
If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?

Axiology and Value Theory?

“Value theory is a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Axiological Presumptive-Value failures vs. Presumptive-value Successes

Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

My quick definition of Axiology?

Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social science/science of value (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question of value/good/worth/beneficial/or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful be interacted with? Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals, and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals, and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals, and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way, should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviors. Such as a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality). To me, true Morality summed up to me is largely the expression of axiological value judgments/assessments carried into an appropriate valueized action. Axiology: Two Worlds in Three Dimensions of Value

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

Sound thinking to Damien, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence. Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value-judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning itself with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

Damien’s Axiological Dignity Being Theory:

An “Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” – Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. And the reason why we should care is that we are Dignity Beings. “Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict

Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

True Morality summed up to me is largely the expression of axiological value judgments/assessments carried into an appropriate valueized action. Harm is often a violation of trust, and a violation of “expected trust” makes bad things even worse. Such as if I told you a child was killed, you would feel it was terrible, but if I further told you, it was the child’s doctor that murdered the child out of anger. You would be more angered as doctors are expected to care for people, not harm them. And if you think that is bad what if I further told you the doctor who killed the child was her mother would you hold her even more in contempt as mothers also are expected to care and not kill children, so a violation of trust is terrible and even makes things worse. Therefore, we can see why people that hold places of trust should never abuse them, and that we should hold them accountable if they do violate such trust by harming others. Morality first, that is morality should be at the forefront in all I do. I hope I am always strong enough to put my morality at the forefront in all I do, so much so, that it is obvious in the ways I think and behave. To better grasp, a naturalistic morality one should see the perspective of how there is a self-regulatory effect on the self-evaluative moral emotions, such as shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. one should conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion.

Babies & Morality?

“They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.” Ref

Animals and Morality?

5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.

Moral Naturalism (James Lenman)

While “moral naturalism” is sometimes used to refer to any approach to metaethics intended to cohere with naturalism in metaphysics more generally, the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. Views of this kind appeal to many as combining the advantages of naturalism and realism. Ref

“Sometimes justice has to outweigh care and sometimes care has to outweigh justice.” One may ask or question how do you discern the appropriate morality course of action between what is ethically right? To me, it takes Axiology (i.e. value consciousness: value judgment analysis of ethical appropriateness due to assessing the value involved).

MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “justice perspective”):

To feel a kind of morality “anxiety” (ethical apprehension to potentially cause harm) about behaviors and their outcomes empathy (I feel you) or sympathy (I feel for you) about something moral that may be done, is being done, or that has been done, thus feeling of distress, apprehension or alarm caused by value-driven emotional intelligence concern; moral/ethical anxiety to the possibility; chance (to do something as a moral thinker and an ethical actor) or dread; respect (to take the sensitivity of a personal moral choice that leads one to choose an ethical behavior(s) and grasping the moral weight of the actions involved and potential outcomes this engagement can or will likely create (using data from learning whether theoretical or practical to lessen the effect of an unpleasant choice as much as posable (morality development/awareness/goals/persuasion). “Moral Anxiety, improves us, while Social Anxiety kills. Some anxieties are indicators of healthy curiosity and strong moral fiber, while others are a source of severe stress. Knowing which is which can help you to navigate your personal, professional, and intellectual life more effectively.” Ref

Moral fear thus is a kind of morality “anxiety” that motivates a fascinating aspect of humanity, which is that we hold ourselves to high moral standards. With our values and emotional intelligence and moral development, we gain a developed prosocial persuasion and thus “tend to self-impose rules on ourselves to protect society from the short-term temptations that might cause us to do things that would have a negative impact in the long-run. For example, we might be tempted to harm a person who bothers us, but a society in which everyone gave in to the temptation to hurt those who made us angry would quickly devolve into chaos. And once we accept that emotion plays some role in complex decisions, it is important to figure out which emotions are influencing different kinds of choices. Therefore, when we make these moral judgments to an extent we are somewhat driven by our ability to reason about the consequences of the actions or are influenced by their emotions to or about the outcomes of the consequences of the actions.” ref

*ps. MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “consequentialist ethics/utilitarian ethics”) is roughly referring to the fight-or-flight response, also known as the acute stress response, which refers to a physiological reaction that occurs in the presence of something that is terrifying, either mentally or physically. The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival.

MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”):

To me, this relates to care/caring ethics, which affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars.This moral theory is known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, “care” involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars. One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Though there are notable thinkers who express early strains of care ethics such as those that can be detected in the writings of feminist philosophers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine and Harriet Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins. Offering a general charged that traditional moral approaches contain a kinda of male bias, and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics. Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, is that of care ethics.

*ps. MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “care ethics (ethics of care)/reciprocity (reciprocal altruism) ethics”) is similar to the fight or flight which is also only part of a bigger picture, according to Shelley Taylor, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues. In the Psychological Review, as in evolutionary psychology, researchers describe how stress can elicit another behavioral pattern they call “tend and befriend”–especially in females. Tend-and-befriend is a behavior exhibited by some animals, including humans, in response to threat. It refers to protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out the social group for mutual defense (befriending), tend-and-befriend is theorized as having evolved as the typical female response to stress, just as the primary male response was fight-or-flight. This kind of gender determinism within the field is the subject of some controversy but I see it as to limited as well because we tend to use multiple sstrategiesto further sucuresafty depending of avalable resorces and if one regardless of gender persuasion is not able to either adequately defend themselves/or others (the fight part of fight or flight ) or is not able to either adequately flee a given threat (the flight part of fight or flight ) then other options such as The tend-and-befriend theoretical model was originally developed by Dr. Shelley E. Taylor and her research team at the University of California, Los Angeles and first described in a Psychological Review article published in the year 2000.

Universal ethics?

There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. My Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. Universal ethics does not mean the imposition of one set of morals by one group on another. It means a shared way or means of reaching a consensus on norms and values that also accepts diversity. A shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In any circumstance or situation, we can start by examining the present state of affairs. This should be done with the aim of gaining an understanding of other cultural differences, history, and tradition, remembering that an explanation is not necessarily a justification. Next, what is the minimum that is acceptable? There has to be an acceptance that some disagreements cannot be resolved at that time. The aim is to change the present situation for the better. Once an acceptable minimum is reached, it is possible to work towards an eventual ideal state. We are all one community and we are all responsible for upholding human rights for each other. More than ever there is a need for agreement on the existence of universally held values and the content of those values. It may prove to be impossible to find one set of universal ethical principles that apply to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions but the destination is only part of the journey. The value lies in the search for principles that can be shared by all and can underpin the framework for global dialogue on ethical issues. A universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions we are all born with. Or it might be a set of explicit norms and values humans might one day universally accept. But a more important sense of ‘universal moral code’ is of a set of moral values that is universally valid, whether or not it is inscribed in our brains, or accepted by people. Of course, that is a very controversial idea. If there is such a universal moral code, then we have an imperative to try to discover it, and to make it universally accepted (to make it a moral code in the descriptive sense). But this requires thinking hard about ethics, not looking for some code that might or might not be written into our brains. Ref Ref Ref

*Non-coercion

“Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against that party. It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desired response. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, or even torture and sexual assault. For example, a bully may demand lunch money from a student where refusal results in the student getting beaten. Coercion used as leverage may force victims to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion can involve not only the infliction of bodily harm, but also psychological abuse (the latter intended to enhance the perceived credibility of the threat). The threat of further harm may also lead to the acquiescence of the person being coerced. The purpose of coercion is to substitute one’s aims to those of the victim. For this reason, many social philosophers have considered coercion as the polar opposite to freedom.” ref

*Anti-hierarchy

“Hierarchy: the arrangement of a particular set of members into (ranks or levels). A hierarchy (from Greek: hierarkhia, ‘rule of a high priest’, from hierarkhes, ‘president of sacred rites’) is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being “above”, “below”, or “at the same Rank/Level as” one another. Rank: the relative value, worth, complexity, power, importance, authority, level etc. of an object.” ref

*Solidarity

“Solidarity or solidarism is an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Soledarity does not reject individuals and sees individuals as the basis of society. It refers to the ties in a that bind people together as one. Anarchist theorist Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) connected the biological and the social in his formulation of solidarity. In his most famous book, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), written partly in response to Huxleyan Social Darwinism, Kropotkin studied the use of cooperation as a survival mechanism in human societies at their various stages, as well as with animals. According to him, mutual aid, or cooperation, within a species has been an important factor in the evolution of social institutions. Solidarity is essential for mutual aid; supportive activity towards other people does not result from the expectation of reward, but rather from instinctive feelings of solidarity.” ref

*Internationalism, actively opposes nationalism similar to, but distinct from globalism.

“Internationalism is an important component of socialist political theory, based on the principle that working-class people of all countries must unite across national boundaries and actively oppose nationalism and war in order to overthrow capitalism. In this sense, the socialist understanding of internationalism is closely related to the concept of international solidarity. Internationalism is a political principle that advocates greater political or economic cooperation among states and nations. It is associated with other political movements and ideologies, but can also reflect a doctrine, belief system, or movement in itself.” ref

“Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes. Internationalism has several interpretations and meanings, but is usually characterized by opposition to nationalism and isolationism; support for international institutions, such as the United Nations, and a cosmopolitan outlook that promotes and respects other cultures and customs.” ref

“The term internationalism is similar to, but distinct from, globalism and cosmopolitanism. The International Workingmen’s Association, or First International, was an organization founded in 1864, composed of various working-class radicals and trade unionists who promoted an ideology of internationalist socialism and anti-imperialism. Figures such as Karl Marx and anarchist revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin would play prominent roles in the First International. The Inaugural Address of the First International, written by Marx in October 1864 and distributed as a pamphlet, contained calls for international cooperation between working people, and condemnations of the imperialist policies of national aggression undertaken by the governments.” ref

*Mutualism

“Mutualism describes the ecological interaction between two or more species where each species has a net benefit. Mutualism is a common type of ecological interaction. Mutualism can be contrasted with interspecific competition, in which each species experiences reduced fitness, and exploitation, or parasitism, in which one species benefits at the expense of the other. Mutualism plays a key part in ecology and evolution. For example, mutualistic interactions are vital for terrestrial ecosystem function as about 80% of land plants species. Humans are involved in mutualisms with other species. One researcher has proposed that the key advantage Homo sapiens had over Neanderthals in competing over similar habitats was the former’s mutualism with dogs.” ref

“Mutualism – tendency concerns with reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract, federation and credit and currency reform. It states that a market without government intervention drives prices down to labor-costs, eliminating profit, rent and interest according to the labor theory of value forcing firms to compete over workers by raising the wages (instead of workers competing over firms). Anarcho-communism – tendency that advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, currency, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers’ councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” ref

*Cooperationism replaces our existing corporate regime with cooperative, mutualist, and nonprofit enterprises.

“Social anarchism (umbrella term) – several traditions of thought that emphasize the social life and relations. While individualists focus on personal autonomy and the rational nature of human beings, social anarchism sees “individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid”, aggregating tendencies that advocates the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. And Collectivist anarchism – a revolutionary tendency most commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin, Johann Most and the anti-authoritarian section of the First International. It opposes all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized. Some collectivists do not oppose the use of currency, supporting workers being paid based on the amount of time they contributed to production and purchasing commodities in a communal market. This contrasts with anarcho-communism where wages and currency would be abolished and where individuals would take freely from a storehouse of goods.” ref

On Cooperationism: An End to the Economic Plague

“The only way forward—beyond a next Democratic administration—is a genuine legal transformation that replaces our existing corporate regime with cooperative, mutualist, and nonprofit enterprises. The many of us who create, invent, produce, work, and serve others need to displace the few who extract and hoard capital and put in place a new cooperationism that favors the equitable and sustainable distribution of economic growth and wealth creation. It is not enough to increase progressive wealth taxes on the billionaires and invest more in public hospitals and public schools, as Piketty recently suggested. That won’t fundamentally change the Faustian logic and temptations. Instead, and urgently, it’s time to replace our system of tournament dirigisme with a new cooperationism. This pandemic and economic crash must not prevent us from working together to place ourselves in a better position to deal with the other crisis—climate change—still looming on the horizon. On the contrary, these times call for a legal, political, and economic revolution to ring in a new epoch of cooperationism. This will demand political will. It will not come from our political leaders, so beholden now to corporate contributions. It will have to come from us all united.” ref

*Empowermentism involves the steps for the empowerment of humanity, power to the people. The process of becoming stronger in self-mastery and more confident, especially in controlling one’s life and claiming one’s rights.

“Empowerment: the capacity of individuals, groups and/or communities to take control of their circumstances, exercise power and achieve their own goals, and the process by which, individually and collectively, they are able to help themselves and others to maximize the quality of their lives. Empowerment is the degree of autonomy and self-determination in people and in communities. This enables them to represent their interests in a responsible and self-determined way, acting on their own authority. It is the process of becoming stronger and more confident, especially in controlling one’s life and claiming one’s rights. Empowerment as action refers both to the process of self-empowerment and to professional support of people, which enables them to overcome their sense of powerlessness and lack of influence, and to recognize and use their resources. As a term, empowerment originates from American community psychology and is associated with the social scientist Julian Rappaport (1981).” ref

“However, the roots of empowerment theory extend further into history and are linked to Marxist sociological theory. These sociological ideas have continued to be developed and refined through Neo-Marxist Theory (also known as Critical Theory). In social work, empowerment forms a practical approach of resource-oriented intervention. In the field of citizenship education and democratic education, empowerment is seen as a tool to increase the responsibility of the citizen. Empowerment is a key concept in the discourse on promoting civic engagement. Empowerment as a concept, which is characterized by a move away from a deficit-oriented towards a more strength-oriented perception, can increasingly be found in management concepts, as well as in the areas of continuing education and self-help. Empowerment is the process of obtaining basic opportunities for marginalized people, either directly by those people, or through the help of non-marginalized others who share their own access to these opportunities. It also includes actively thwarting attempts to deny those opportunities.” ref

“Empowerment theory social work involves using intervention methods to guide people toward achieving a sense of control. People may feel helpless in their lives for any number of reasons, but empowerment theory focuses on how oppression contributes to this experience. It centers on helping marginalized people at individual, group and community levels gain the personal, interpersonal and political power to improve their lives. Additionally, the model seeks to challenge systems that prevent or hinder people from having their needs met.” ref

Utopian Communities and Non-Revolutionary Anarchism

“Many anarchists are revolutionaries who want change to be created through direct action. But given our preceding discussion of violence, disobedience, and the potential for success of revolutionary activity, the question arises about opting-out of political life. The Epicureans and Cynics pointed in this direction. The history of anarchism is replete with efforts to construct anarchist communes that are independent and separated from the rest of state centered political life.” ref

“We might pick up the history here with the Christian anarchists and pacifists of the Reformation: the Mennonites, for example; or the Quakers who refused to doff their hats for political authorities and who sought a refuge in Pennsylvania. Indeed, there is an anarchist thread to the colonization of North America, as those who were disgruntled with European political and religious hierarchy left for the “new world” or were forced out by the European authorities. In the Seventeenth Century, Anne Hutchinson was cast out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and forced to found a new community, when she concluded that the idea of government was flawed. Hutchinson is considered as one of the first anarchists of North America (see Stringham 2007). Separatist communities were founded by the New England abolitionists and transcendentalists, by Josiah Warren, and by others.” ref

“Anarchist communes were formed in Europe during the Nineteenth Century and in Spain during the 1930s. There have been ongoing movements and organizations of indigenous peoples and others who inhabit the margins of mainstream political life. In the 1960s and 70s, anarchist separatism was reiterated in the Hippy communes and attempts to live off the grid and get back to nature. Alternative communes, squats, and spontaneous gatherings continue to occur.” ref

“Separatist communities have to consider: the degree to which they give up on anarchist direct action against dominant political forces, the extent to which they have to accommodate themselves to political reality, and the risk that customary hierarchies will be reinstated within the commune. For the revolutionary anarchist, separatism is a strategy of avoidance that impedes political action. Separatist communes must often obey the rules of the dominant political organization in order to trade and get connected to the rest of the world. Finally, a complaint made about separatist communes is that they can end up being structured by sexist, classist, and other hierarchical organizing principles. One might argue that until the dominant culture is revolutionized, separatism will only be a pale reflection of the anarchist ideal. And yet, on the other hand, advocates of separatism will argue that the best way for anarchist ideals to take hold is to demonstrate that they work and to provide an inspiration and experimental proving ground for anarchism.” ref

“If revolutionary activity is taken off the table, then anarchists are left with various forms of gradualism and reformism. One way this might occur is through the creation of “temporary autonomous zones” such as those described by Bey. Along these lines David Graeber provides a description of the cultural and spiritual work that would be required in order to prepare the way for anarchist revolution. Graeber says that this would require “liberation in the imaginary”, by which he means that through activism, utopian communities, and the like there can be a gradual change in the way political power is imagined and understood (Graeber 2004). Revolutionary anarchists will respond to this by arguing that liberation in the imaginary is simply imaginary liberation: without actual change in the status quo, oppression and inequality continue to be a problem.” ref

Anarchism is Nihilistic and Destructive

“Objection: This objection holds that anarchism is merely another name for chaos and for a rejection of order. This objection holds that anarchists are violent and destructive and that they are intent on destroying everything, including morality itself.” ref

“Reply: This objection does not seem to recognize that anarchists come in many varieties. Many anarchists are also pacifists—and so do not advocate violent revolution. Many other anarchists are firmly committed to moral principles such as autonomy, liberty, solidarity, and equality. Some anarchists do take their critique of arché in a nihilistic direction that denies ethical principles. But one can be committed to anarchism, while advocating for caring communities. Indeed, many of the main authors in the anarchist tradition believed that the state and the other hierarchical and authoritarian structures of contemporary society prevented human flourishing.” ref

Anarchism Will Always Evolve Back into the State

“Objection: This objection holds that anarchism is inherently unstable. Hobbes and other early modern social contract theories maintain that the state emerges as a necessary response to natural anarchy which keeps order and protects our interests. A different theory comes from Nozick, who argues that the “night-watchman state” would emerge out of anarchy by an invisible hand process: as people will exercise their liberty and purchase protection from a protection agency, which would eventually evolve into something like a minimal state.” ref

“Reply: Anarchists may argue that the state of nature is simply not a state of war and so that Hobbes’s description is false. Some anarcho-primitivists will argue that things were much better for human beings in the original state of nature in small communities living close to the land. Other anarchists might argue that the disadvantages of state organizations—the creation of hierarchies, monopolies, inequalities, and the like—simply outweigh the benefits of state structures; and that rational agents would choose to remain in anarchy rather than allow the state to evolve. Some anarchists may argue that each time a state emerges, it would have to be destroyed. But others will argue that education and human development (including technological development) would prevent the reemergence of the state.” ref

Anarchism is Utopian

“Objection: This objection holds that there simply is no way to destroy or deconstruct the state. So exercises in anarchist political theory are fruitless. It would be better, from this point of view to focus on critiques of hierarchy, inequality, and threats to liberty from within liberal or libertarian political theory—and to engage in reforms that occur within the status quo and mainstream political organization.” ref

“Reply: Ideal theory is always in opposition to non-ideal theory. But utopian speculation can be useful for clarifying values. Thus philosophical anarchism may be a useful exercise that helps us understand our values and commitment, even though political anarchism has no hope of succeeding. Furthermore, there are examples of successful anarchist communities on a small local scale (for example, in the separatist communities discussed above). These concrete examples can be viewed as experiments in anarchist theory and practice.” ref

Anarchism is Incoherent

“Objection: This objection holds that a political theory that abolishes political structures makes no sense. A related concern arises when anarchism is taken to be a critique of authority in every case and in all senses. If anarchists deny then that there can be any arché whatsoever, then the claim contradicts itself: we would have a ruling theory that states that there is no ruling theory. This sort of criticism is related to standard criticisms of relativism and nihilism. Related to this is a more concrete and mundane objection that holds that there can be no anarchist movement or collective action, since anarchism is constitutionally opposed to the idea of a movement or collective (since under anarchism there can be no authoritative ruler or set of rules).” ref

“Reply: This objection only holds if anarchism is taken to be an all-or-nothing theory of the absolutist variety. Political anarchists do not necessarily agree with the skeptical post-foundationalist critique which holds that there can be no ruling principle or authority whatsoever. Rather, political anarchists hold that there are legitimate authorities but that political power quickly loses its authoritativeness and legitimacy. Furthermore, anarchists tend to advocate for a principle and procedure for organization based upon voluntarism and mutual aid, as well as unanimity and/or consensus. From this point of view anarchist communities can work very well, provided that they avoid coercive authority. To support this point anarchists will point to historical examples of successful anarchist communes. They will also point to ordinary human relations—in families and civil society relationship—which operate quite well apart form coercive and hierarchical political authority.” ref

Philosophical Anarchism is “Toothless”

“Objection: One objection to philosophical anarchism of the sort discussed throughout this essay is that it remains merely theoretical. Some political anarchists have little patience for abstract discourses that do not engage in direct action. One worry about philosophical anarchism is that in failing to act—and in failing to take responsibility for the actions that ought to follow from thought—philosophical anarchism remains a bourgeois convenience that actually serves the status quo. Thus when philosophical anarchists remain uncommitted in terms of the concrete questions raised by anarchism—whether they should obey the law, whether they should vote, and so on—they tend to support the interests of defenders of the status quo.” ref

“Reply: In response to this objection, one might defend the importance of philosophical reflection. It is important to be clear about principles and ideas before taking action. And with anarchism the stakes are quite high. The puzzles created by philosophical anarchism are profound. They lead us to question traditional notions of sovereignty, political obligation, and so on. They lead us to wonder about cultural and ethical conventions, including also our first principles regarding the theory and organization of social life. Given the difficulty of resolving many of these questions, the philosophical anarchist may hold that caution is in order. Moreover, the philosophical anarchist might also defend the importance of wonder. The anarchist critique gives us reason to wonder about much that we take for granted. Wonder may not change the world in immediate ways or lead to direct action. But wonder is an important step in the direction of thoughtful, ethical action.” ref

“Anarchism forces us to re-evaluate political activity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato held that human beings flourished within just political communities and that there was a virtue in serving the polis. Modern political philosophy tended to hold, as well, that political action—including obedience to the law and the ideal of a rule of law—was noble and enlightened. In Hegelian political philosophy, these ideas combine in a way that celebrates citizenship and service to the state. And in contemporary liberal political philosophy, it is often presumed that obedience to the law is required as a prima facie duty (see Reiman 1972; Gans 1992). Anarchists, of course, call this all into question.” ref

“The crucial question for anarchists is thus whether one ought to disengage from political life, whether one ought to submit to political authority and obey the law, or whether one ought to engage in active efforts to actively abolish the state. Those who opt to work actively for the abolition of the state often understand this as a form of “direct action” or “propaganda of the deed”. The idea of direct action is often viewed as typical of anarchists, who believe that something ought to be done to actively abolish the state including: graffiti, street theater, organized occupations, boycotts, and even violence. There are disputes among anarchists about what ought to be done, with an important dividing line occurring with regard to the question of violence and criminal behavior.” ref

“Before turning to that discussion, let’s note one further important theoretical distinction with regard to the question of taking action, connected to the typology offered above: whether action should be justified in consequentialist or non-consequentialist terms. Franks has argued that anarchist direct action ought to exemplify a unity of means and ends (Franks 2003). On this view, if liberation and autonomy are what anarchists are pursuing, then the methods used to obtain these goods must be liberationist and celebrate autonomy—and embody this within direct action. Franks argues that the idea that “the end justifies the means” is more typical of state-centered movements, such as Bolshevism—and of right-wing movements. While some may think that anarchists are willing to engage in action “by any means necessary”, that phraseology and the crass consequentialism underlying it is more typical of radical movements which are not anarchist. Coercive imposition of the anarchist ideal re-inscribes the problem of domination, hierarchy, centralization, and monopolistic power that the anarchist was originally opposed to.” ref

Nonviolence, Violence, and Criminality

“One significant philosophical and ethical problem for politically engaged anarchists is the question of how to avoid ongoing cycles of power and violence that are likely to erupt in the absence of centralized political power. One suggestion, mentioned above, is that anarchists will often want to emphasize the unity of means and ends. This idea shows why there is some substantial overlap and conjunction between anarchism and pacifism. Pacifist typically emphasize the unity of means and ends. But not all pacifists are anarchists. However, we mentioned above that there is a connection between anarchism and Christian pacifism, as found in Tolstoy, for example. Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy and the anarchists. Although Gandhi is better known as an anti-colonial activist, Marshall includes Gandhi among the anarchists (Marshall 2010: chapter 26). It is possible to reconstruct anti-colonial movements and arguments about self-determination and home rule as a kind of anarchism (aimed at destroying colonial power and imperial states). Gandhi noted that there were many anarchists working in India in his time. In saying this, Gandhi uses the term anarchism to characterize bomb-throwing advocates of violence. He says: “I myself am an anarchist, but of another type” (Gandhi 1916 [1956: 134]). Gandhian anarchism, if there is such a thing, embraces nonviolence. In general nonviolent resistance as developed in the Tolstoy-Gandhi-King tradition fits with an approach that turns away from political power and views the state as a purveyor of war and an impediment to equality and human development.” ref

“Objecting to this anarcho-pacifist approach are more militant activists who advocate direct action that can include sabotage and other forms of political violence including terrorism. Emma Goldman explains, for example, that anti-capitalist sabotage undermines the idea of private possession. While the legal system considers this to be criminal, Goldman contends it is not. She explains, it is ethical in the best sense, since it helps society to get rid of its worst foe, the most detrimental factor of social life. Sabotage is mainly concerned with obstructing, by every possible method, the regular process of production, thereby demonstrating the determination of the workers to give according to what they receive, and no more. (Goldman 1913 [1998: 94])” ref

“Goldman struggled with the question of violence through the course of her career. Early on she was a more vocal proponent of revolutionary violence. She began to rethink this later. Nonetheless, like other anarchists of her generation, she attributed violence to the state, which she opposed. She writes: I believe that Anarchism is the only philosophy of peace, the only theory of the social relationship that values human life above everything else. I know that some Anarchists have committed acts of violence, but it is the terrible economic inequality and great political injustice that prompt such acts, not Anarchism. Every institution today rests on violence; our very atmosphere is saturated with it. (Goldman 1913 [1998: 59])” ref

“Goldman views anarchist violence as merely reactive. In response to state violence, the anarchists often argued that they were merely using violence in self-defense. Another defender of violence is Malatesta who wrote that the revolution against the violence of the ruling class must be violent. He explained: I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence. (Malatesta 1925 [2015: 48]) Like Goldman, Malatesta warned against violence becoming an end in itself and giving way to brutality and ferocity for its own sake. He also described anarchists as preachers of love and advocates of peace. He said, what distinguishes the anarchists from all others is in fact their horror of violence, their desire and intention to eliminate physical violence from human relations. (Malatesta 1924 [2015: 46])” ref

“But despite this rejection of violence, Malatesta advocates violence as a necessary evil. Anarchist violence appears as the violence of an individual against the state. It is easy to see why such violence would be characterized as terroristic and criminal. For an individual to declare war against the state and take action to disrupt the state is criminal. And thus anarchists have also been interested in a critique of crime and criminality—arguing that it is the law and the legal system that creates and produces crime and criminality. This critique was advanced by Kropotkin as early as the 1870s, when he called prisons “schools for crime”. Similar ideas are found in Foucault and in more recent criticisms of mass incarceration. Contemporary anarchists will argue that mass incarceration is an example of state power run amok.” ref

Disobedience, Revolution, and Reform

“The question of violence leads us to a further issue: the question of obedience, disobedience, resistance, and political obligation. Much could be said here about the nature of political obligation and obedience: including whether obedience is merely pragmatic and strategic or based upon notions about loyalty and claims about identification with the nation and its laws. But it is clear that anarchists have no principled reason for political obedience. If the anarchist views the state as illegitimate, then obedience and participation are merely a matter of choice, preference, and pragmatism—and not a matter of loyalty or duty.” ref

“Christian anarchists will look, for example, to the case of Jesus and his idea of rendering unto Caesar what is due to Caesar (Matthew 22:15–22). The anarchist interpretation of this passage claims that this is an indication both of Jesus’s disaffection with the state and with his grudging acquiescence to political authority. Christoyannopoulos argues, “Jesus’ political subversion is carried out through submission rather than revolt” (Christoyannopoulos 2010: 156). The crucifixion, on this interpretation, is a subversive event, which “unmasks” political power as “demonic” and illegitimate. Jesus does not recognize the ultimate moral and religious authority of Caesar or Pilate. But he goes along with the political regime. Thus some anarchists may simply be compliant and submissive.” ref

“But politically motivated anarchists encourage resistance to state power, including strategic and principled disobedience. Such disobedience could involve symbolic actions—graffiti and the like—or acts of civil resistance, protests, tax resistance and so on—up to, and possibly including, sabotage, property crime, and outright violence. Again, there is overlap with the discussion of violence here, but let’s set that question aside and focus on the notion of civil disobedience. One important example is found in Thoreau, who famously explained his act of disobedience by tax resistance as follows: In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases. (Thoreau 1849 [1937: 687])” ref

“Thoreau’s disobedience is principled. He recognizes that a declaration of war against the state is a criminal act. He willingly goes to jail. But he also admits that he will cooperate with the state in other cases—since there is something advantageous about cooperation. This indicates the complexity of the question of cooperation, protest, and disobedience. Thoreau’s essay, “Civil Disobedience” (1849), is often viewed as an anarchist manifesto. Kropotkin discussed him as an anarchist (Kropotkin 1927 [2002]). And Tolstoy admired his act of civil disobedience—as did Gandhi.” ref

“Anarchists continue to discuss strategies and tactics of disobedience. One problem throughout this discussion is the degree to which disobedience is effective. If there were to be successful anarchist campaigns of disobedience they would have to be organized and widespread. Whether such campaigns would actually work to disassemble the state apparatus remains an open question.” ref

“Until their dreamed-of revolution comes, anarchist must consider the degree to which cooperation with the state involves “selling out” to the political status quo. Perhaps there are reforms and short-term gains that can be obtained through traditional political means: voting, lobbying legislators, etc. But anarchists have often held to an all-or-nothing kind of approach to political participation. We noted above that the Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul has said that he does not vote because anarchy implies conscientious objection. But herein lies a strategic conundrum. If progressively minded anarchists opt out of the political system, this means that less enlightened policies will prevail. By not voting or otherwise engaging in ordinary politics, the anarchist ends up with a system that he or she will be even less happy with than if he or she had actively participated in the system.” ref

“This is, really, a problem of revolution versus reform. The revolutionary wants revolution now, believing that it will occur by way of direct action of various sorts. Perhaps the revolutionary is also thinking that the psychological, cultural, and spiritual evolution toward revolutionary consciousness can only occur when direct action is taken: in order for anarchism to emerge, the anarchist may think, one ought to behave and think like an anarchist. But without a concerted and nation-wide revolution, revolutionary action begins to look like mere selfishness, Epicurean opting out, or what Bookchin criticized as “lifestyle anarchism”. Meanwhile those reform-minded folks who work within the system of political power and legality can end up supporting a system that they have doubts about. This philosophical problem of reform vs. revolution exists for all radical political agendas. But the problem is especially acute for anarchists, since anarchism is often an all-or-none proposition: if the state is justified then gradualism and reformism make sense; but if no state can be justified, then what is sometimes called “reformist anarchism” is a non-starter (see L. Davis 2012).” ref

Imagine a world with enough excess to support all humanity yet we choose to change for everything even that found for free in or on the land. And a sociopathic society moved to want killing in war, spending almost like an addicted mind bent on killing itself rather than change. Is a fellow human being harmed? Then, hell yes, to me it is personal. A person of honor is not the same as a person who is never mad. We need to value the humanity expressed or exchanged in and by people, not the job title, claim of education level, or political power, nor how cool you might be. We rise by helping each other.

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary who teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. In times of struggle or strife we humans can be most out of shape mentally so be patient as you can with others as we all are going through hell right now and desperately need each other. I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values.

To me, the clear fundamental issue in anarchism is “self-sovereignty/responsibility freedom,” so when I hear it limited to anti-statism, I don’t see this as grasping anarchism as it is about values, not lack of group unity or rules but freedom from rulers. I am Pro-Science. I follow valid and reliable reason and evidence. I also challenge ideas with which I do agree with. I trust that science also self-corrects when given good reasons to.

I strive to address fake history (Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience) and its supporters as well as try to teach real history. I also make speculations on history from how I see the evidence relating. I strive to be right in my thinking and actions but understand as an agreer to some of fallibilism‘s thinking, that I know I can be wrong and am thus rationally open to changing my thinking on valid and reliable reason and evidence. It is my welcoming correction that distills my thinking to the purity available to reach reason.

Here is the form of fallibilism I am thinking, “The claim that all assertions are provisional and thus open to revision in light of new evidence, which is widely taken for granted in the natural sciences.” ref

I am an atheist, antitheist, and antireligionist. However, I am also a self-taught prehistorian, trying to explain the evolution of religion which requires me fully understand the connections of religious or spiritual beliefs to allow others to rethink the belief in them. To expose the evolution of religion and thus understand its humanness not just from reason but do to understanding all the facts of archaeology, anthropology, and religious mythology. It is to bring about awareness to inspire others to atheism or at least a new understanding of religion removing its believed special status when religion or spiritual beliefs are, to me, just “culture” or “sociocultural“ products, like language. I don’t believe in gods or ghosts, and nor souls either. I don’t believe in heavens or hells, nor any supernatural anything. I don’t believe in Aliens, Bigfoot, nor Atlantis. I strive to follow reason and be a rationalist. Reason is my only master and may we all master reason.

“Sociocultural factors characterize social and cultural forces that influence the feelings, attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs, interactions, and behaviors of related individuals and groups.” ref

“Examples of sociocultural factors include:

Income and wealth distribution
Social classes
Attitudes towards education and work,
Language, customs, and taboos
Business and health practices
Housing
Religious beliefs
Population size and housing
Social mobility
Age distribution and social values” ref

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which brings about a new caring awareness.

I don’t believe in the supernatural notion of a “soul,” especially with our natural only evolution. Undesigned natural processes of evolution made us “believing-machines.” I am not an animist, thus I don’t believe in souls or spirits. How can I? When in our natural only evolution was there added magical anything? I can’t buy anything but natural, thus I can be labeled a “Metaphysical naturalist (also called ontological naturalist, philosophical naturalist, and anti-supernaturalist) which is a philosophical worldview that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.” ref

I am a rationalist, not a skeptic. I appeal to reason, not doubt, like most atheists. No “skepticism attack” tactics used on others atheists works on me, as I don’t even value skepticism. When the Truth is afraid, Fascism of some kind, likely Reigns. While many skeptics may tend to strive to master doubt, I as a rationalist, strive to master reason.

I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. Methodological: relating to the system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity: such as “a wide variety of methodological approaches to ethical problem-solving in my approach to truth or the label of knowledge.”

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

Religion is Unwarranted Faith and Belief. The problem with religion is unwarranted faith and belief. The problem of faith is as an invalid justification and the belief problem is holding unjustified false belief believing it is justified true belief. I use the Animism term as a definition of spirit-beliefs or a kind of Supernatural-Spiritism thinking, that to me, are in all spiritual or religious type beliefs, not primitive but core. I see Animism as the original religion (religious non-naturalism/supernatural persuasion or spiritual/magical thinking) of all humanity and is still in all the religions of the world.

I am mainly a prehistorian, 1 million to around 5,000/4,000 years ago. So while I may understand the past most don’t I don’t know a lot of history many seem to commonly know. I am not reading any more books, maybe ever again as I am tired from a life devoted to deep study. lol

Nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge.

I don’t see religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism as primitive but original or core elements that are different parts of world views and their supernatural/non-natural beliefs or thinking.

In the past or even lingering today, are beliefs often ripe with religious bigotry, seen in how religious/spiritual thinking not Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) religious thinking are often believed to be primitive, unequal, or less than monotheism (preserved as the only real or not the correct religion beliefs if not monotheism).

I see all religions as having shared or similar features or core elements that relate to religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism including Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) religious thinking.

I don’t class any religious thinking as primitive but in error to what I see as a natural-only world, that religious thinking then makes up a myriad of non-natural/non-empirical themes/beings, stories, and myths about which group together are called religions.

I do anarchist teaching of prehistory, in that I don’t just make a blog, expecting people to come to me. No, I take all my knowledge, and like a gorilla soldier, I force-feed to the world my knowledge, one piece at a time, that is just what is needed. So, I heed that call and teach in public…

Do good, make no excuses, just do good, the world desperately needs more of this, and if we all do more, we all win. We rise by helping each other. I am an autodidactic-polymath in many subjects and a genus in both IQ intelligence as well as EQ emotional intelligence, quite rare. Yet I am ignored? Most disregard my ideas, I don’t think so, or is it due to my blogs that are so long they are like small free books, scary right?

I like learning prehistory!

I also hate: “Pseudo-science, Pseudo-history, and Pseudo-morality.”

So yeah, history is fun, but one must weed through the sometimes added mythology, half-truths, or outright lies. This is even more important when reading religion-related information.

The greatest lie ever, was the fraud of democracy, from its conceptions in Greece, claiming the freedom to vote, all the while upholding the institution of slavery. We today are sold the lie of capitalism, and the elite that play in space, while children starve in the streets…

The sad history of democracy is one of continued bigotry of elites and slaves, but now with a happy face or less unhappy faces, I should say, for more accuracy, as some non-slaves were a little more equal in a limited kind of way and/or scope.

If Americanism has taught us anything, it is that this “land” (people claiming colonialism as a birthright) loves bigotry, hate, lying, violence, denial, and unscientific explanations to just about any damn thing that can’t get away fast enough.

What if truth, mattered? Would we be more open-minded, or did you think you were already good, no improvement needed as most do, or do you let “new knowledge” alluded to, get in? Do you care? If so, what have you done to help change the world? When was the last time you realized you were wrong, then changed?

I often struggle for a better world but it is hard when hate is more motivating than love… Shamefully, the world thrives on bigotry and it needs to stop, no matter what style of society it is wrong.

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

My basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

Believe it or not, people took their brains with them, so trade routes are also related to the spread of religious ideas.

“The Major religions spread across Eurasia and Africa through trade routes and conquest. Along with the religions came ideas and practices to new and distant places, changing local populations and creating new traditional beliefs and customs.” https://www.123helpme.com/essay/Trade-Routes-and-Religion-256229

Ancient Trade Routes between Europe and Asia: “Long-distance trade played a major role in the cultural, religious, and artistic exchanges that took place between the major centers of civilization in Europe and Asia during antiquity.”
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/trade/hd_trade.htm

"The historical accounts linking trade routes and Muslim adherence across countries are indicative of their importance for the spread of Islam." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046173/

“All the religions that spread in the Indian Ocean Trade Routes belonged to anywhere groups which were Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam that can be existed in each part of the world.” https://edubirdie.com/examples/what-religions-spread-on-the-indian-ocean-trade-routes-essay/

“The Silk Road evokes images of places and peoples linked by the exchange of exotic goods and fabled treasures. This limited notion of commerce, however, overshadows the fact that the Silk Road as a network of trade routes also spread religious ideas and beliefs.” https://festival.si.edu/2002/the-silk-road/the-silk-road-crossroads-and-encounters-of-faith/smithsonian

One of many, not one over many, let the people be free, and let them have free education!

I am virtuous to the vulnerable and champion justice, so valiantly, as I have experienced the hateful lash of unkindness and wish to champion its opposite, radical kindness in an unkind world, a sigh of true bravery. Never have I regretted being kind but often upon reflection, I have regretted my expression of anger. I have never wanted more hate in the world but how eagerly and proud I have worked to build a kinder world. For I know it starts with me, I am responsible. Long ago I only cared about “myself”, what a foolish time of my life. I once was afraid to champion kindness fearing I would look weak. Now I see the bravery of kindness and the weakness of hate.

Who gives a fuck?

Small abused hand rising to become a fist, I grab the microphone. Well, me of course. I am brave enough to be kind. As all people of high honor do. How about you? We are all an equal humanity, even I am a nothing, a no one, just one of the whole, which we all must care about if we want true human-flourishing, and if it must, let it start with me. May I be a true person of value, an honorable human, just another, a fellow dignity-being. It is not a matter of being the only flame but to inspire us all to unify as one, to bring light to all we can. Be an honest thinker who values only reason and evidence as your main helpful guides. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. In the end, all we have is each other and life is just too damn short to not be kind. It is not my moment of the greatest selfishness that holds good memories in my heart. No, it is my moment of the greatest selflessness that holds good memories in my heart.

I strive to be a good human ethical in both my thinking and behaviors thus I strive to be:

Anti-racist, Anti-sexist, Anti-homophobic, Anti-biphobic. Anti-transphobic, Anti-classist, Anti-ablest, Anti-ageist, and as Always 🏴 Antifascist 🏴

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.” – Edward Abbey

Two Anarchists: Cory Johnston and Damien Marie AtHope, address the Israel and Palestine conflict

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

#AntiCapitalism

Social Anarchism or Socialist Anarchism

Nature of Anarchism

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

Closest Match: Anarcho-Communism

Paganism 12,000-4,000 years old

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest