sleepwalker on Nostr: On Pro-C, Pedophilia and Anarchism It seems to me that there is a fundamental ...

On Pro-C, Pedophilia and Anarchism

It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the thinking of anarchist MAPs (pedophiles, first and foremost) who hold Pro-C positions.

Well, let's start with the fact that it would be strange to deny the power imbalance between an adult and a pais, meaning a child of about 5-7 years old. As an adult, I have a million ways to exert one influence or another, the level of knowledge and even life experience is simply incomparable. Anyone who denies this is either lying to themselves, or knows the truth but is lying to everyone else. I'm not saying anything about infants, because... it's probably obvious to everyone, right?

Anarchism as a political philosophy, however, is based on the negation of power as such. Arche is a Greek word expressing power and, at the same time, some first cause. If you thought of God, that's the right intuition - God is both the first cause and the supreme power. Therefore, it's no coincidence that the Russian anarchist Bakunin was a militant atheist and said that even if God existed, we would have to kill him :) Anarchism emerged as a reaction to the horrors of the French Revolution, while simultaneously radicalizing liberal foundations (Proudhon wrote about this in General Idea of The Revolution in the 19th Century, as far as I remember) - absolutely any power, any hierarchy is declared oppressive. The alternative is conceived as something that arises spontaneously and without external coercion, horizontal ties of equals. It is assumed that society can be "reassembled" on these foundations.

But by and large, this is a contradiction- it's impossible to be a consistent anarchist and at the same time hold a Pro-C position when it comes to pedophilia, since its core is a certain imbalance of capabilities. I deliberately separate pedophilia from ephebophilia and hebephilia - regarding these two, one can always say that although they are minors, they are still not paides. The Greek word "pais" meant boys, and in general, children of a certain age, up to 8-9 years old, when they left the family circle and began to study at the palaestra.

For the Pro-C position on pedophilia to be consistent, one must, in fact, adopt a realistic view of power - it is not evil as such. Or try to dispute the thesis of a power imbalance, but, as I've already said, in my opinion, this is a completely dead-end position.

This destroys anarchism as such, because it is based on the negation of all forms of power, regardless of their goals, ethics of application, etc. A defender of anarchism, of course, can refer to Noam Chomsky, who spoke of destroying not all hierarchies, but only those that can be destroyed. For example, one can preserve the doctor-patient hierarchy, but destroy the state and capitalism. But this argumentation doesn't seem honest to me- if you say that some hierarchies will remain, then it is probably assumed that they can be used in such a way as to minimize the oppression of others or even improve their situation, which in essence undermines the anarchist position as such, since nothing positive is recognized in power. The anarchist Robert Paul Wolff, author of the Kantian argument for anarchism, for example, wrote in his book In Defense of Anarchism that we should still wish to overcome such hierarchies, since the protection of one's own autonomy (which he understands in a Kantian sense) is the primary task.

In short, the recognition of the necessity of certain hierarchies undermines the essence of anarchism as such, that which distinguishes it, for example, from radical liberalism.

This also significantly reduces the rhetorical persuasiveness of standard leftist arguments against authoritarianism as such.

If power is not bad in itself, but only its application can be bad, then authoritarianism itself is also not bad. A ruler can be wise, or he can be foolish, he can think only of himself, but he can also think of the good of some collective whole. In that case, authoritarianism turns into one of the tools of power, which can be useful under certain conditions.

Just like a pedophile - he can think only of himself, but he can also care for the good of the child. The criterion, let's say, is the motive, and one can also speak of "responsiveness" as in Noddings's ethics of care. "With great power comes great responsibility". These are asymmetrical power relations, but there is nothing wrong with them in themselves, if one accepts the position of the neutrality of power. Otherwise, it would be consistent to take the position of Robert Paul Wolff - rejection of the state and hierarchies of this kind in combination with resistance to hierarchies like doctor-patient or teacher-student. But this also implies a rejection of the Pro-C position regarding pedophilia.

It is more reasonable to understand power in a Foucauldian way - it not only oppresses, it produces. It produces the subject, it produces knowledge. Without power and hierarchies, there would be absolutely nothing, including caring relations. Power is dispersed and manifests itself during any human interactions, including even language (which forces you to speak in a certain way, and not another, to convey the meaning of a message). To hold Pro-C positions as a pedophile without contradiction is only possible if one accepts this fundamental premise, which also implies a rejection of anarchism as a political ideology.

And of communism, btw, too, since communism is usually understood as a stateless society of direct self-governance and socialized ownership of the means of production, and the goals of communists and anarcho-communists are generally the same. Except for the methods of achieving them, as has been repeatedly stated by anarcho-communists themselves.