Yeee yee

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

327 comments

And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
we all know about the bootmaker, but i would say if there is an oppressive hierarchy, it's not anarchist.
- I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh. And they absolutely had authority. Hell, they had concentration camps.
  
  I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh.
  you don't get to define what i am.
  
  And you don't get to no true Scotsman away the Catalonian or Ukrainian anarchists, who did large scale anarchist projects.
  
  if you have cops, you're not a fucking anarchist society. this shouldn't be hard to understand.
  
  Okay, so at this point it seems anarchist societies are pretty impossible, if all these principled anarchists end up forming non-anarchist societies over and over again when they win power.
  So what is even the point of being an anarchist? To feel good about yourself?
  
  which marxist project ended up stateless and classless?
  
  Thats literally the difference between us, I believe less exploitation is better than waiting for a perfect solution. Socializing the means of production, even if it doesn't eliminate all exploitation, eliminates capitalist exploitation, which is a massive win for the working class as it is the main source of our exploitation.
  I'm not sure if after capitalism is destroyed socialist States will actually wither away or not, but Im sure they'll be less bloody to move past than capitalism was if it is the latter.
  
  i think we could get along fine on mutual aid projects. i don't think i can trust you to facilitate a meeting.
  
  I dont exist in structures where the meeting facilitator has that much of an impact to the point that the meeting would be derailed by a shitty one, but I guess that's a difference between the ways our ideologies organize.
  
  it was the smallest amount of power I could concieve. certainly, there is an authority in small things like setting the agenda and deciding on how strictly to adhere to timetables.
  
  it's tautological
  
  no. words have meanings.
  
  We should define an ideology by its actions, not just its claims.
  no. we should judge people by their actions. we should judge ideologies by their propositions.
  
  should judge ideologies by their propositions.
  Okay, I see. If we are judging ideologies purely by "wouldn't it be nice if" then anarchism is clearly superior.
  Well, on second though, no. "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't get defeated by fascists" certainly has a pretty nice ring to it...
  
  Okay, I see. If we are judging ideologies purely by “wouldn’t it be nice if” then anarchism is clearly superior.
  you almost got me
  Well, on second though, no. “wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t get defeated by fascists” certainly has a pretty nice ring to it…
  i'm not saying i have a good plan. i'm saying i am suspicious of any plan that concentrates power, and i believe my suspicion is warranted.
  
  i’m not saying i have a good plan. i’m saying i am suspicious of any plan that concentrates power, and i believe my suspicion is warranted.
  I mean, look up the life expectancy of China vs India over time. Place your suspicion against the facts.
  
  The fact is that China has police and prisons and banks. I don't know for sure but I would guess they even have landlords. That's not my revolution.
  
  that makes no sense. mercantilism threw no revolution.
  
  you know I dwelt on this a bit, and the revolution was thrown by the people and it wasn't thrown for mercantilism. it was just against the feudal system. but what followed was mercantilism. merchants didn't throw the revolution. I don't know how you got the conclusion that the French revolution was a mercantilist revolution. I honestly can't think of a single mercantilist revolution. The closest thing I can imagine are the American revolution and possibly the piracy of the 18th century.
  
  oh fuck. forgot one.

327 comments