cringe and/or lame

cringe

imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.

does a ‘nice’ king justify monarchy?

no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.

if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?

je suis l’etat-man

tongue-ass national forest😻

how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.

realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.

attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.

the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.

common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.

communism is when ussr

profit is theft

completely ignoring the relationship in which a worker must sell their labor as a commodity to a capital-owning class.

work != labor

this is the most generous possible interpretation of the gadsden, while ignoring its current usage, as well as ignoring the anti-authoritarian meaning behind the sabocat, and red/black scheme.

ps: the American revolution was a lateral move, replacing a hereditary monarchy with a dictatorship of capital. The ‘founding fathers’ were their time’s equivalent of musk and bezos, and they explicitly wanted to protect the interest of the capital owning class from the will of the working class and those humans who they kept as property.

https://lemmy.world/c/jbrc

based and sustainability-pilled

popular elections in an ecosystem 1/4 bots, in which the admins hold ultimate unilateral authority.

they yearn for the glorious people’s boot

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you

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

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

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

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

that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)

state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.

just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.

the neck cares not the color of the boot

I hereby submit myself for consideration. I firmly oppose authoritarian apologists and jerks.