Something something worlds largest prison population?

Again, it's not like North Korea is some shining example or anything, but to pretend that the west has the moral high ground here is laughable.

Again, listen to Blowback Season 3, recognize that their country was basically bombed to the stone age Curtis le may style and then maybe reevaluate, just a little, the chauvinist attitude.

DPRK is not a great country but it's not as if they were ever given a chance either.

Genocide and pol pot is terrible. So is the USA.

Implying the us is better than Cambodia because Cambodia committed genocide is very weird, considering that the US did so too

yeah, and every time a communist country tried to pop up USAmerica sent Smedley Butler to ass blast them.

I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society? Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?

Sorry to be so dismissive, I'm actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.

governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

I don't. I don't think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it's the preferable solution.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?

Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible.

That's silly. Systemic inequalities don't make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn't do on their own then I don't think we'll ever get along. It's alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.

Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don't have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don't want to hear about it any further.

anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.

Acknowledges Marxist theory as much as acknowledging Newtonian gravitational theory may be a way to put it. Most of the ones I know either accept Marxist general theory as a whole, non-critically, and the rest are anti-communist/anti-marxist idealists, as much as any fascist would be. Because the true essence and reason for the existence of fascism is anti-communism.

There are many social relations that are oppressive, why limit it to state? Parents are oppressive, teachers, professors, bosses, cops, military higher officers, spouses, parents in law, ... prison guards ... they are all oppressive. Is it just the state? Is it a different class of people who oppress from those being oppressed?

the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.

Between the late 1800s and early 1900s the state became an insurer of labor law and justice, the welfare state was born, rights to pension, an 8hr day, sick leave, vacation, overtime pay, were all provided and were promised by the state. So we can say the state backed off and became hostile to capital. Between struggle (labor syndicalism) and the capitalist state there was a dialectic transformation, the social democracy was born. Today the state has absolutely surrendered to the powers of the banking financial world system, made out of a handful of banks and financial institutions mainly based in NY, London, Frankfurt, Paris, maybe even in HKong, Tokyo, to a lesser extent. All states owe to private global markets to such a degree that just one or two clicks down on their bond ratings and they are bankrupt and in the hands of IMF and other bankers to implement the most vicious neo-liberal reform anyone can imagine.

This means that when leninists propose on taking over a state that just means removing it from the markets and sentencing the population to starvation and misery. "Abolishing the state" is just as suicidal. Should there be a thing like political responsibility for genocide proposed by pseudo revolutionaries, who want to enforce their fantasy on people already suffering because of capitalism?

governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

As long as you speak of "a system" you imply, like it or not, a centralized system, a system that supervises whether the system is implemented correctly or not. That constitutes an authority. Whether this authority and enforcement is conducted by "anti-authoritarians" who as a minority forced their terms and conditions on a society, we are speaking of a revolutionary vanguard, an authoritarian force over the entire society (under the state and within state borders).

By the way, the collapse of the Syrian state had a gradual effect of Turkey moving sourth, Israel and Libanon moving further east, Iran moving west, I am uncleat of Jordan is taking a piece of the pie, and some Iraqi authorities are eyeballing the Kurdish management of some areas they would like to grub as well. So by abolishing a state these days the remaining states in the globe legitimize the neighbors all grubbing a piece without anyone being a state to protest. Assad's only friend is too busy fighting the entirety of NATO playing a game on the heads of the residents of ex-Ukraine.

can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools

As long as your focus is to destroy and dismantle instead of constructing an alternative and an escape route from capitalism you will be condemned by history as a force of nothing beneficial to humanity.

As long as you preach -isms- from a high tower looking down on people without ideology, and you refuse to accept that the dialectic between leninism and libertarianism has already materialized, that more than a million people have been living OUTSIDE of capitalism, in autonomous communities, for nearly 30years (this next new year's eve), decide in their communities EVERYTHING about their own lives, mostly using consensus, and their federation (2 levels) is designed to serve the community not to dictate to the community, you are more authoritarian and stuck up than you really think. Now these people have liberated themselves from capitalism, they live outside it, they are unaffected by it, other by having to fend off some para-military attacks here and there 2-3 times a year, their values and principles are even more strict than the early 1900s CNT constitution, and they laugh really hard and stick a finger up to all revolutionary vanguards, but you keep speaking hypothetically, what if society did this and that and the other thing.

If you want to be heard, you should be looking up to indigenous peasants, farmers, not down. If you want the residents of the favela to follow bureaucrats and academics to social change, you are in worse shape and dillusion than the average tankies. If you want children industrial workers in SE Asia to look up to your ideology and rhetoric, to buy your story, I assure you they think you are dumber than they are.

Who gives a flying ** what "anarchism" acknowledges.

I don't know how any of that applies to what I said here.

Edit: I skimmed through the text on the first read because I was sleepy. After reading more carefully I guess you're agreeing with me somewhat: yes, the necessity for certain types of organization in specific situations is why I dislike anarchism.

I don't know why a certain ineffective administrative model would have to be coupled with a more equitable economic model. Although I didn't want to argue that point, rather express a preference.

What's your definition of "tankie"? If you're willing to call out Putin's homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government's massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you're not a tankie imo, you're just a communist.

I'm confused on your point.

well some people who are called "tankies" do. some of them are just rabid bhreznevites

To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian "communism" they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.

Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?

well is there any actually existing socialist country that you would support?

None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.

Fair point. Though so far, there hasn't really been any system at all that didn't lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.

The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.

The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.

The same can be said for capitalism though.

Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.

"The Russian and Chinese boots just taste better, I tell you."

And engaging in bad faith but accusing everyone else of engaging in bad faith.

maoists??? I think you should read anything by mao. he was anything but "authoritarian", he spend most of his time after 1949 taking a sledgehammer to bureaucracy & encouraging communities to be self reliant

lol.

most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes

you meant UK, USA or both?

btw seens a paradox that you guys so "pro freedom" are asking for bans of people that you disagree.

I mean Aaron Swartz

fair

radical solidarity, mutual aid, armed community defense. none of these require the state apparatus.

If you're in a position where you can freely oppress the capitalist class then you've already supplanted them and become the capitalist class.

There won't be a capitalist class when their assets are seized.

well that's just childish isn't it

Ok but let's not pretend that either Marx or Lenin envisaged their form of communism as what Stalin was doing

It's no different to "free speech" suddenly meaning "free hate speech, but restricted speech on anything else"

Does that mean I have to support shitty states that pretend to care about their own citizens?

I personally live in Russia.

Yes, they were both bad. Enemy of my enemy is not necessary my friend.

What if class was to be determined by both economics (exploitation) and power (oppression), therefore in the USSR all the leninist reformists did was to exchange the wealthy upper class for the all powerful upper class. So at best Leninism is a bad reform of capitalism.

No state can ever achieve anything more than the liberation of the capitalist class. The only liberation for the masses is to seek alternative ways to self govern and abolish any centralized power structures from reforming again.

magats, but make it left

don't care + didn't read + stay mad + L + ratio

Why are you threatening me with a good time

Aight fair enough, that's pretty concerning.

Nothing wrong per se with communism itself, it just tends to be extremely unstable and quickly turns to authoritarianism, I don't think it's ever worked for any nation in history so far.

The defending of Uyghur genocides, and the defending of the CCP and Russian government is really concerning though. Good thing this platform is federated.

libretro has a similar problem, it's developed by a team of transphobic, homophobic, racist Russian apologists who border on Nazism. I don't know what attracts these people to FOSS development.

non-extremists usually aren’t particularly anti-communist

just be open about it and say you want more anti-communist fascists if you're going to go about defending how riddled with fascism these anti-communist spaces are