Source? If that’s the case then yeah, that’s a mistake on my ideological ancestors’ part.

Goddamn right, we want everything, not just the banks

🍴😁🏴

Nah I think this user is saying that both have their place. And really, I don’t think that’s controversial. E.g., we do need to seize the banks, which will probably be violent, but we also need to do mutual aid, which need not be violent.

My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.

I literally cannot conjure up a better example for what kinds of mistakes you can internalize by doing a clean-room design of anarchism.

I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.

That’s magical thinking. Yeah there’s no such thing as a pure anarchist text and we are all shaped by the oppressions we are subject to, but the reasonable response is not to retreat into your own head, since you are certainly just as “tainted” as anyone else. Instead, the reasonable response is to read all texts critically, i.e. assume a perfect text does not exist.

And frankly, I don’t even want to read solely anarchist books. There are lots of people who make excellent contributions to various fields of endeavor who are not necessarily anarchists. E.g., I loved Omar El-Akkad’s book One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This on the Gaza genocide, and I recommend every anarchist read it even though El-Akkad is not an anarchist to the best of my knowledge. It’s up to us to approach literature with a critical assessment.

I’m sure the next asshole’s gonna be just as bad or worse, but lol go fuck yourself Bondi 🖕😆🖕

It’s just under 1% of a billionaire’s wealth. That’s how much money these fucking ghouls have 💀

My condolences

It’s just a simple step from “you should convinced to do this” to “you should be compelled to do this.”

It’s actually a huge step, actually. It’s like… the whole thing. It’s “here’s why it would be neat if you consented to this, but you can do something else if you like” versus “do it lol”.

Which is a freedom the majority of the world already possesses, so rather obviously it doesn’t ensure or even imply anarchism.

Privilege spotted. The majority of the world absolutely does NOT have freedom of association, even de jure.

And beyond that, more pointedly but less obviously, ideological collectives (as yours does) always carry with them an unstated presumption that the entity from which people would be free to disassociate would rightfully hold some property.

No they don’t, you’re imagining that. E.g., you can have multiple distinct anarchist collectives in the same area.

So you’re actually, already, envisioning an entity that would … establish the norms that are expected of those who live there.

1000% yes. If you join a chess club started by me, you can’t shit on the chessboards. You are free to start a chess club where shitting on the chessboards is allowed/encouraged. Establishing norms is not necessarily a system of domination or hierarchy.

As long as people continue to believe that they can and should have some say over other people’s decisions, anarchism will fail.

If someone decides to rape me, I am wrecking their shit. That’s a bad decision and I’m not gonna respect it at all. It’s not authoritarian to make and act on that judgment call. Obviously, this is perfectly in line with anarchist theory and praxis.

There are plenty of less extreme examples where someone’s decisions will harm someone else, e.g. insert an example from almost any undergraduate ethics textbook.

I gotta be so real with you: you seem like you want to do anarchism with the seriousness and care it deserves, but I suspect you’re trying to do a “clean room design” of anarchist principles. Please just do the reading. Anarchist literature is informed by generations of praxis and mistakes that you have no way of accumulating in a “clean room” within a single lifetime. There are even anarchists who make your arguments a lot more convincingly than you’re doing.

Where they’ll be free to kill all the humans bourgeoisie.

There are really only two broad options - whatever people make up an anarchistic society will make whatever choices they make for whatever reasosns they make them, and enough of them will be conscious enough of the need to compromise to do so, and they’ll end up with a more or less stable society that might be hastily generalized in some broad and necessarily inaccurate ways

This… sounds like anarchism succeeding. IMO, being an anarcho-communist (or whatever) is trying to persuade people to use anarchist communism (or whatever) as the framework to make better choices “for whatever reasons they make them”, because we think that this is a good framework for reasoning about an uncertain world. But if you want to think differently about anarchism, that’s completely fine, welcome even. Diversity is strength. But that doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop passionately advocating for what I think is right.

One of the many ways by which anarchism could fail is by ideologues digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on any of the dogma stipulated by the label to which they’ve sworn allegiance.

All forms of anarchism organize on the basis of free association. Again, dissatisfied parties can freely disassociate and go do their own thing. Or, they can reach a compromise. Either outcome is not a failure of anarchism.

As long as you’re not creating a new state, systems of domination, hierarchies, etc., then go do what you want. Anarcho-collectivism (or -communism, or -syndicalism, or mutualism) doesn’t mean imposing those frameworks of anarchist organization on the proletariat and the ecology; it just means we have a viewpoint on which mode(s) of organization have the best chance of achieving liberation.

Here’s a hint - if you think collectively, you’ve already failed.

Anarcho-collectivists: *continues existing*

No lol I’m almost a recluse besides school. The only accurate part is that I played a little guitar, but no one was around. But today I’m mostly gonna be finishing up some schoolwork.

Hope you can find some happiness soon.

From Wikipedia:

“Left-wing politics or leftism is the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy either as a whole,[1][2][3][4] or to certain social hierarchies, to varying extents.[5]”

“Right-wing politics or rightism is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position in favour of conservatism, natural law, economics, authority, property, religion, or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]”

Like come on guys, he literally proved how what I was saying, its bullshit!

Not quite, no. I spoke specifically about anarchists and our relation to socialism.

Unfortunately, in , our socialist movement is so weak and atrophied that we often find ourselves working with social democrats and well-meaning liberals and progressives who are just starting out their journey into socialism. So leftism is most certainly not a single coherent ideology; it’s a vague generalization of various groups that want to move the needle towards egalitarian values. It would be convenient if all these people were socialists, which I suspect is what you’re pushing people to do: identify as socialists. And to that end, I agree with you: cast off the shackles of capitalist fearmongering about spooky scary socialists and their Satanic™ ways, so that we can all speak the common language of socialism and the precision it gives us to critique our world and imagine better alternatives.

But that doesn’t mean that non-socialist leftists don’t exist. It would be easier if we all spoke the common language of socialism…but we don’t.

Emphasis on numpties 😆

So no, I won’t be using socialist to describe an anarchist.

From An Anarchist FAQ:

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the “notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product” and think that in an anarchist society “the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done.” By so doing workers would free themselves “from the terrible bondage of capitalism.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Anarchism”, Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style “socialism” – better called “state capitalism” --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves “socialists.” They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay “Modern Science and Anarchism,” “[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense – as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital – the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker’s words, “the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own,” a claim that both “the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism” agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word “socialist” was originally defined to include “all those who believed in the individual’s right to possess what he or she produced.” [Lance Klafta, “Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism,” in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

I guess it’s a bit imprecise to refer to anarchists as “socialists” but we’re definitely a (proper!) subset of socialists 😄.

Cops, soldiers, politicians, CEOs, judges, landlords, debt collectors, repossession agents, and any job solely designed to impose the will of the capitalists upon the world.

I am taking crazy pills, but also we were down.

I think you’re thinking of the unary numeral system. While some people do call it “base 1”, it’s not really a positional number system like the other base N systems. In unary, you “write” 0 by just not writing anything.