Bait? In my Christian shitposting community?
I would never!
It’s a Godric post. What else would you expect??
The downside of creating political shitposts in this community is feeling obligated to read the parapgraphs on paragraphs of seemingly serious political theory that no one asked for.
At some point, you have to lean into the shit part of shitpost and accept that you’re posting in a troll thread
JuSt ReAd tHeOry bRo!
I wish I had it saved but this one time a commenter basically said “I don’t have time to explain this to you” and then came back 6 hours later with 1000 word reply.
Millions killed in purges and policy created in cults of personality.
Yeah, need to make a whole identity sh*tting on imperfect democracies while touting systems that have always devolved into dictatorships.
Devolved?
Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?
Why the f does that matter? They existed as they did, killed multiple millons, so don’t butwhatabout and redirect.
Cause you said they all devolved into dictatorships and that is factually inaccurate.
Every example in the OP is from a revolution that occurred in response to an existing non-democratic, capitalist, authoritarian state.
So the revolutions took over states that were in fact not democratic. This is not a moral judgement but a clarification of fact.
Another clarification is the notion of “Have Always”
Do you think those listed are the only examples?
Care to explain the Paris Commune? Allende in Chile? The socialist republic in Spain? Arbenz in Guatemala? Lumumba and the pan african movement in Congo? Nicaragua? The PKI and Sukarmo in Indonesia? And then in East Timor? Just to name a few
It is not a whataboutism to challenge your assertions of factual ignorance.
Meanwhile the Anarchists are like…
Well, easier to overthrow one than the other.
Is it tho
Ah, yes, I forgot. Those two famously still in power people… checks notes… Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
I wish I could create an alternate reality where anarchy reigns and transport all these “anarchists” to it and watch them drown the entire reality in their tears as they suffer and die.
Without the Government and Capitalism, everything would collapse and it would just be like Mad Max!
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
We know exactly what anarchy looks like in human history, it’s how every human society worked before agriculture started consolidating power in the hands of sociopaths.
It’s how some steppe tribes lived. It’s how most North Americans lived before Columbus.
Anarchism is the natural state of humanity because it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day. The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
Lol. My scenario included literal magic. Literal magic to create an alternate reality. I know people be dumb and that’s why you have to use /s when you’re being sarcastic on the internet, but I thought people would grasp that a literal magical scenario was sarcastic. Guess I gave you too much credit. To be clear, I want them to suffer under the conditions they want for everyone else so they can hopefully learn and be less ignorant going forward.
it’s how every human society worked before agriculture
So when people used to raid other settlements and rape, murder, and enslave the occupants and take their resources for their own and you’d be lucky to live to 40 and it was probably a pretty painful 40 years. Great example you’ve got there. Sounds like a sweet reality to live in. Pre-agriculture human life was short and largely comprised of suffering.
it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day.
Yes, modern civilization with 8+ billion people is just tribes. Very simple. It’s all just very simple in your mind, isn’t it?
The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
Yes, those are the only differences…
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge
This isn’t an either/or situation. It isn’t have anarchy or have psychopath oligarchs be in charge.
The fact that you need to create this obscene scenario to prove your point indicates how weak your point is.
My vision for anarchy basically functions like an average friend group, there is no “leader” of the group, anyone can organize an event, whether its a hangout, a dinner, or asking for help with a project. Nobody is forced to go to any given event. If a conflict comes up, then we talk about it like adults, and come to a beneficial resolution. Each person chips in in their own ways. Honestly its pretty fucking awesome and I think the world would be a lot better place if we had this mentality.
What happens when someone selfishly refuses to contribute to the common good? Or worse, actively attempts to disrupt it?
They are cast away from the community. There’s no common ground. It’s impossible to mee their needs when their needs is going against everyone else’s needs.
They’re free to go elsewhere. Maybe they’ll like Japan.
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
mutualism
central planning
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
Then their ideology completely falls apart. Lol.
Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?
While your version of anarchy works on a micro level amongst friends, unfortunately, it would not work on a macro national level. Or even state level. Or even city level.
You’re also basically describing voting. People come together and express their opinion and the opinion with the most support wins.
So, not anarchism.
Anarchists are allowed to vote. What are you talking about?
Can’t tell you how many times these twats have called me a genocider.
It used to be a pretty serious word, but these losers are working overtime stripping it of all its meaning by using it on everyone that disagrees with them.
I just respond I’m anti genocide, including, Russia’s kidnapping and trafficking Ukrainian children and China’s genocide of the Uyghars. It shuts them up or they immediately start defending them and then I call them genocides.
I’ve been called a zionist genocider for pointing out mass-murder is evil. People are fucking NUTS!
They sure are, and I think some of them are here to brigade this post.
The usual pattern: one, then two, then ten to defend the honor of Comrad Slaughterhouse and bury us all in bad-faith brigades.
“Everything I don’t like is CIA propaganda” is the usual argument.
Hey, there’s also “CNN talking mfer”. I was called that for recalling my literal personal experiences of interacting with Russians years before full scale war.
Hurtful, I’m like SUPER likable
So, ‘everyone I like, too’?
Aww thanks buddy, I’m not sure I’m allowed to talk to captchas though
Depends on if you’re a robot… hey, wait a minute
Ummm…/ I am a human //
Aww man, I put a TON of thought into my propaganda. At least give me some constructive criticism instead of just not liking it
Oh, great to see you here! I’ve been meaning to contact you regarding my latest propaganda paycheck delay.
Look, it’s not my fault that Trump funneled all our funding into his crypto scam. You’ll get paid when we do damnit!
19 XRAY KILO FOXTROT 28
Message received: drone strike on your location in 10
It’s enough to drive a man to anarchy
Makhno was right all along
The problem with both anarchism and communism is that while they can work at the smaller scales, at the bigger ones they become more and more vulnerable. Both can pretty easily devolve into plain authoritarianism. I’m a big fan of anarchy as a concept, but i don’t see how it could work on a geopolitical scale.
I’d say anarchism has more self-checks against authoritarianism compared to capitalism or “communism” of the Soviet or Chinese variety. In the end, it’s all about reducing the reliance on hierarchies and there’s no single right way to do it.
Getting rid of hierarchies certainly helps, yeah… The problem is though, that a political power without a hierarchy will inherently lose to a hierarchical one at least in terms of military power, which is geopoliticianeese for “i’m free to take by whomever!”
Groups remain small
Small divided groups are inherently easier to subjugate. The saying “Divide and conquer” exists for a reason.
It’s the only option
I’ll let my ignorance shine - what’s the b/w photo to the right?
Pretty sure it’s the 1990s DPRK famine
I don’t take sides because nobody is on my side.
[Edit: --Treebeard]
Can I be on your side?
Enlightened Centrism, then?
No, enlightened centrists have representation.
I’m a socialist in the United States and AOC is gonna vote for Hakeem Fucking Jeffries for Speaker, so who is really on my side at this moment?
But in the context of the US vs China, it seems like people are always explicitly making me pick a side. Almost all the China-bashing is motivated by wanting to keep the US hegemonic, and every time I say, “Hey, why are we saying China shouldn’t rule the world but never challenging why we allow the United States to rule the world?” I get called a tankie.
It really does feel like AOC is a career politician with too deep ties with super pacs that fund most of the “moderates” in democratic party.
Please vote her out as well.
Yes let’s eat ourselves guys, it’s the only solution am I right fellow comrades? Quickly let’s fuck ourselves as hard as we can, it’s ideological purity that people need, not results!
It’s not ideological purity. I don’t have anything against her, but if she votes Jefferies then the blue wave will have little effect imo.
If america had an actual multi-party system this wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place. You get your preferred candidate and I get my preferred one, most likely in a coalition together.
So you think if Jeffreys gets to keep his job, and bearing in mind I agree with you that he is a fucking waterproof teabag, you think that this entire election cycle and all of the new people brought into congress, will have “little effect”?
I mean it would be a blow, but don’t you think that this kind of hyperbolic overreaction is unhelpful? Like, if he does, are you gonna give up? I’m not in a competition to be the most leftist, I want to push our wins and recover from our losses.
They way you talk is defeatist.
Okay, you are right. All is not lost. I am not trying to be defeatist, there will be other chances.
I just think it’s rare to see so many non career politicians win elections. It’s a good moment to shore up and solidify that base before the two party rotating system rings back in.
The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.
And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren’t explicitly bought and sold
Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
You are right, it’s more the culture of the institution she’s a part of. That however doesn’t excuse it. She has the chance, with the new wave to stand with the right kind of people.
The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
Not if you vote the moderates out. I know it’s more complicated than this, but trump has set a fire in motion that might not burn again very soon.
This time I saw that wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Idaho had independents running against the republicans for the senate. They were all blue collar working class military veterans. They had close races. I am not familiar with their elections but it seems like the people want a change, but they don’t want to vote for the same old guys who are supported by corporates and outside interests. This is the perfect time for change.
We have a real problem in that it’s relatively easy for establishment candidates to give off progressive signals and for the mainstream media to never challenge them, so people will happily pose as progressives and then go right back to the establishment.
Look to Susan Collins for a mirrored example of that. It’s very effective.
That said, I think we’re going to have a lot of angry primary voters in 2028 if things keep going how they’re going.
No True Progressive
If someone is a Progressive 99% of the time and fucks up 1% of the time, tHeYrE eStAbLiShMeNt NeOlIbS!!!
With this much purity testing, it’s no wonder the left has no ground to stand on in the US - the rug keeps getting pulled by people further left of whatever platform they’re on.
Meanwhile the conservatives and fascists are patting each other on the back for putting aside their differences.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
It is when you try to argue that AOC is No True Progressive.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Cool soapbox, but I never said anything different; you’re acting like I disagree with you here.
Here’s to hoping.
Ah gotcha, you’re a purity tester; my mistake.
Are simplistic stereotypes the only way you can understand the world?
No, I just try to figure out whence cometh ridiculous behavior so I can point it out and others can ignore it in peace.
I can see why your account is a throwaway.
I can see why yours is incoherent nonsense.
I’ve heard a number of progressive reps say they’ve had positive conversations with Jeffries regarding the House policy agenda for the upcoming session. I’m interested to hear more. To Jeffries’ credit, he’s only been leader for 2 years in the minority, maybe let’s see how he does with a majority.
Have not heard the same about Schumer. We’re all ready for that guy to not be in charge
Isn’t Jefferies funded by the same super pacs that fund the other moderates? Things aren’t gonna change if he gets elected.
Trump was a good wakeup call to ditch these guys.
Just trust me, bro is not what I want to stake the future of the country on.
If Jeffries is Speaker and doesn’t deliver on progressive demands, the political situation is going to become very unstable. Expect more Democratic primary challenges and wilder swings in the electorate as people desperately look for someone who will finally actually do something, and maybe some solutions will be tried outside the ballot box.
We’re sitting on a powder keg.
I anticipate the next 2 years are going to be rough. I would not be surprised if the Trump Admin starts arresting legislators.
As far as the Democratic Party, I anticipate the progressive momentum from this election will carry over into 2028. What we’re witnessing is literally a generational shift, as all these 80 year olds finally start dying or losing power and Millennials are rapidly increasing their power in Congress
But your name isn’t Treebeard…
Not to mention Treebeard discovered he was wrong to avoid getting involved once he understood what was going on.
Counter-revolutionaries aren’t innocent. Check mate, lib /s
REACTIONARY, REACTIONARY, YOU’RE A CIA REACTIONARY
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower. Dystopian surveillance and murderous authorities? Check. Imperialist foreign policy built on multiple genocides? Check. Pogroms and oppression of minorities? Not only check, but the US is arguably worse than China or the USSR. Though I admit that may be due to the US having an extra century to do dirt. And don’t forget America’s the world leader in Gulags.
The idea that America is benevolent is stupid. The idea that she’s benevolent by comparison is running mighty thin.
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower.
“I literally cannot tell the difference between Louis XVI and Robespierre” is a thing you can say from a very great historical distance.
Uhh, yeah, we don’t disagree that America often sucks. Pointing that out in response to criticism pointed at other authoritarian regimes doesn’t make them good. For example, talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate. Does that magically make gulags good? No, it’s whataboutism and deflection.
When people want to pretend that communism is worse than capitalism because of gulags, that’s not whataboutism.
Because when capitalism is imprisoning as many people as communism, and also leaving millions to live on the streets, starve, etc. then it’s very relevant since you’re comparing them.
When you criticize only one system for things done by both, pointing that out isn’t deflection - it’s simply showing the hypocrisy. When that’s your only argument in the comparison, that’s very relevant.
talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate.
I didn’t mean to imply the connection between America’s gulags and the Soviets. I meant to state it explicitly. And I also want to point out the meme itself is a whataboutism.
