LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Kowani]

Groucho Marx was better than Karl Marx, ngl.

[Aellex]

It seems you haven't studied your own ideology's history because random assassination and bomb throwing are the two corner stones upon which it was built.

You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?

Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.

[Frievolk]

You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?

Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.

I mean a great deal of the bad red is due to Saboteur and Provocateur agents, seeing as the majority of pre-late 19th century Anarchist history is more a matter of pacifist theory than active "propaganda of the deed".

[Aellex]

Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.

I mean a great deal of the bad red is due to Saboteur and Provocateur agents, seeing as the majority of pre-late 19th century Anarchist history is more a matter of pacifist theory than active "propaganda of the deed".

I disagree, Anarchists have been going at assassination since their earliest days and have been very proactive at it too. From the attempted murder of Napoléon III to the successful one of the president of the republic Carno passing by the bombing of the parliament all of that in France alone, Anarchy is the political ideology that embraced the first terrorism and used it to its fullest extent.

[Frievolk]

I mean a great deal of the bad red is due to Saboteur and Provocateur agents, seeing as the majority of pre-late 19th century Anarchist history is more a matter of pacifist theory than active "propaganda of the deed".

I disagree, Anarchists have been going at assassination since their earliest days and have been very proactive at it too. From the attempted murder of Napoléon III to the successful one of the president of the republic Carno passing by the bombing of the parliament all of that in France alone, Anarchy is the political ideology that embraced the first terrorism and used it to its fullest extent.

All of which belongs to the latter half of the 19th century, while Anarchism, as a branch of enlightenment thought, already existed in early 18th century. Then again, if acts of assassination and mayhem were any reason to denounce an ideology, we would have very few post-18th century ideologies left for debate.

[Aellex]

I disagree, Anarchists have been going at assassination since their earliest days and have been very proactive at it too. From the attempted murder of Napoléon III to the successful one of the president of the republic Carno passing by the bombing of the parliament all of that in France alone, Anarchy is the political ideology that embraced the first terrorism and used it to its fullest extent.

All of which belongs to the latter half of the 19th century, while Anarchism, as a branch of enlightenment thought, already existed in early 18th century. Then again, if acts of assassination and mayhem were any reason to denounce an ideology, we would have very few post-18th century ideologies left for debate.

It didn't tho. The commonly accepted date for the "creation" of Anarchism as a coherent ideology is 1840 and bomb throwers were already perpetrating their campaigns less than a decade later. The only people who were as quick to start using violence for their political movements were fascists and even them have the "excuse" of their nations being in state of quasi-civil war and intense internal turmoil, one that the anars don't have.

And no. No ideology apart from fascism and communism maybe has the use of violence and terrorism so tied to itself. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Frievolk]

All of which belongs to the latter half of the 19th century, while Anarchism, as a branch of enlightenment thought, already existed in early 18th century. Then again, if acts of assassination and mayhem were any reason to denounce an ideology, we would have very few post-18th century ideologies left for debate.

It didn't tho. The commonly accepted date for the "creation" of Anarchism as a coherent ideology is 1840 and bomb throwers were already perpetrating their campaigns less than a decade later. The only people who were as quick to start using violence for their political movements were fascists and even them have the "excuse" of their nations being in state of quasi-civil war and intense internal turmoil, one that the anars don't have.

And no. No ideology apart from fascism and communism maybe has the use of violence and terrorism so tied to itself. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Ignoring the precursor ideologies (i.e. the stuff from 1500s, before that, etc.), Anarchism found its name by Godwin in late 1700s. My estimate of "it started in early 1700s" was wrong -I mistook it for something else- but it was already around in 1790s if Godwin put a "name" on it. In France too, nonetheless. Furthermore, I don't claim to understand the point of insurrectionist anarchism. I don't adhere to it, nor do I speak for it; but to claim "Anarchism, communism, and fascism are the only states to start using violence for their political movements" is a bit dishonest imo, especially since various enlightenment-oriented schools of thought -including liberalism and nationalism- were already agitating for revolution all over the world as early as 1770s.

[Aellex]

It didn't tho. The commonly accepted date for the "creation" of Anarchism as a coherent ideology is 1840 and bomb throwers were already perpetrating their campaigns less than a decade later. The only people who were as quick to start using violence for their political movements were fascists and even them have the "excuse" of their nations being in state of quasi-civil war and intense internal turmoil, one that the anars don't have.

And no. No ideology apart from fascism and communism maybe has the use of violence and terrorism so tied to itself. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Ignoring the precursor ideologies (i.e. the stuff from 1500s, before that, etc.), Anarchism found its name by Godwin in late 1700s. My estimate of "it started in early 1700s" was wrong -I mistook it for something else- but it was already around in 1790s if Godwin put a "name" on it. In France too, nonetheless. Furthermore, I don't claim to understand the point of insurrectionist anarchism. I don't adhere to it, nor do I speak for it; but to claim "Anarchism, communism, and fascism are the only states to start using violence for their political movements" is a bit dishonest imo, especially since various enlightenment-oriented schools of thought -including liberalism and nationalism- were already agitating for revolution all over the world as early as 1770s.

But it took its political sense only with Proudhon who theorized it in the mid 19th century.

As for agitating insurrection or revolution, it is wholly different from committing random acts of terrors targeting civilians for no other goal than ideological propaganda which is something that was indeed limited almost entirely to the three ideology I mentioned.

[Frievolk]

But it took its political sense only with Proudhon who theorized it in the mid 19th century.

As for agitating insurrection or revolution, it is wholly different from committing random acts of terrors targeting civilians for no other goal than ideological propaganda which is something that was indeed limited almost entirely to the three ideology I mentioned.

Proudhon didn't "theorize" it. He wasn't even the only important anarchist theorist of his era. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this regard.

[Aellex]

But it took its political sense only with Proudhon who theorized it in the mid 19th century.

As for agitating insurrection or revolution, it is wholly different from committing random acts of terrors targeting civilians for no other goal than ideological propaganda which is something that was indeed limited almost entirely to the three ideology I mentioned.

Proudhon didn't "theorize" it. He wasn't even the only important anarchist theorist of his era. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this regard.

Fair enough indeed.

[Grenartia]

Anarchism can still have a justice system for dealing with shit like murder or rape and the like without developing a state.

It'd, of course, be at it's most efficient with multiple communities forming confederations and agreeing upon standardized systems of rules and ways to carry out justice. That'd even allow for impartial mediators from other communities to mediate heinous cases that they're not personally attached to.

See, it's not so much about destroying the justice system as it is reimagining it in a way that fits within the Anarchist worldview of eroding away unjust institutions and establishing ones that the people themselves agree on as a whole, that are actually accountable to the people to ensure they don't carry out misdeeds.

You're pretty much making small states at that point tbh

This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.

You're pretty much making small states at that point tbh

Communal governments, friendo. Governments =/= states. A voluntary direct democracy that encompasses the entire community as governors of itself isn't a state.

I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?

Where would you keep defendants before a trial? I wouldn't imagine prisons to exist in anarchism.

... Some sort of holding area, I suppose?

That's a prison.

If I'm not mistaken, defendants aren't usually tossed straight into prisons without a trial first.

Prisons are used to both hold suspects before a trial, and convicts after the trial.

... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.



Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.

A juror can't simply opt-out once they've been selected, short of an emergency. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding suitable jurors without mandatory summons.

God, how the hell did I end up agreeing with you over Torra?

A juror can't simply opt-out once they've been selected, short of an emergency. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding suitable jurors without mandatory summons.

They can opt-out during the selection process. You just gotta know the right things to say.

Entirely relevant clip.

[Salus Maior]

>elected judges
Embrace kritarchy.

... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.

Also voluntary juries is a horrible idea.

Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.

THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?

If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?

[Proctopeo]

... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.



Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.

THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?

If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?

"As I have no right to sentence you to anything, I merely advise you to put yourself into exile. But I can't make you do it."

[Autarkheia]

Tbqfh who cares if anarchism was violent in the 19th century. What anarchists think of violence now is way more relevant. And besides, hard facts but anarchism on the whole is not very relevant anyway.

This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.

Same. Ancoms are overly idealistic, and ancaps are kind of nuts, but at least they're not openly stanning for mass-murdering dictatorships. (Except the helicopter memers, of course.)

Er, no.

Don't say stuff like this, it sounds smug.

He was objectively wrong, because he pinned every single form of upper class into "bourgeoisie" which, ironically, means working middle class, while he pinned every single form of working class into "Proletariat" which, while not as inaccurate as his definition of bourgeoisie, is still a very specific type of worker (the type that has no use to the society other than with his work), and then started a tall tale of how the world's been the stage of war between these two fictional classes.

Let me correct myself: At the time he may have been more right, because there was a wider class divide and the working class were poorer and had lower standards of living than today. A major flaw is that he focused on the industrial working class when most of the world was still agrarian, which is why the Marxists that came after (especially Maoists) turned it into a "workers and peasants!" thing and thought they could leapfrog from a semi-feudal society to an industrialized socialist one. Which of course had uh, mixed results.

(Also in Marxist dogma, the bourgeoisie don't really "work" because their role is to be a giant vampire squid that extracts profit from the work of others. This is tied to the labour theory of value which is bunk. But that doesn't matter.)

This is all just details because we both agree that Marx's class analysis is wrong, but his idea that classes have interests that are antagonistic to each other is not necessary wrong. His problem was that for his theory to work, he had to pigeonhole everyone into a small number of classes and gloss over anything that didn't fit these definitions. That's why the theory is unscientific and useless today.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?

This is from one of my books:

To Engels, the state will “wither away” in the second, and possibly final, stage of communism. The idea of a state should, I think, be placed into its historical context. The modern nation state and capitalism are twin vestiges of the European and North American Enlightenment. The two systems, taken together, became the foundation of the capitalist world–system. Capitalism was viewed as a rational, or liberal, economic ideology. The nation state was regarded as a rational, or liberal, alternative to the monarchies which dominated the Western, as well as the Eastern, world. Marx rejected idealism, while favoring materialism, in his Critique of the German Ideology. The nation state and capitalism are part and parcel of the same political economy. Since Marx and Engels were communist internationalists, they denounced the capitalist–based state, not Proletarian world governance.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective

[Northern Davincia]

Same. Ancoms are overly idealistic, and ancaps are kind of nuts, but at least they're not openly stanning for mass-murdering dictatorships. (Except the helicopter memers, of course.)

We memers are innocent!

Groucho Marx was better than Karl Marx, ngl.

Both make me laugh for similar reasons.

[Torrocca]

... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.



Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.

THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?

If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?

... I didn't say that, though.

I was merely stating that it's not a case of kritarchy, because it's not a situation where the judges rule over everyone else.

You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?

Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.

My personal ideology isn't insurrectionary, so you're pointing at the wrong roots, chief.

Communal governments, friendo. Governments =/= states. A voluntary direct democracy that encompasses the entire community as governors of itself isn't a state.

I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?

The state is, in essence, a compulsory entity that utilizes a monopoly on force to maintain its compulsory nature. A voluntary, direct democratic communal government wouldn't be equivalent, regardless of whether it does likable things or not, because it requires voluntary association and non-aggression (not the NAP, mind you, because that requires upholding private property which requires a state) to be valid as such.

... Some sort of holding area, I suppose?

That's a prison.

If I'm not mistaken, defendants aren't usually tossed straight into prisons without a trial first.

Prisons are used to both hold suspects before a trial, and convicts after the trial.

Fair enough, I hadn't actually known that until today. Should've checked that out.

A juror can't simply opt-out once they've been selected, short of an emergency. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding suitable jurors without mandatory summons.

God, how the hell did I end up agreeing with you over Torra?

... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?

[Autarkheia]

Same. Ancoms are overly idealistic, and ancaps are kind of nuts, but at least they're not openly stanning for mass-murdering dictatorships. (Except the helicopter memers, of course.)

We memers are innocent!

Memeing about supporting mass murder is at best edgy and in poor taste.

[Northern Davincia]

... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?

Doesn't sound very voluntary, if you ask me.

This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.

You can be surprised how many ancaps deny being right-wing.

[Torrocca]

... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?

Doesn't sound very voluntary, if you ask me.

It's most definitely voluntary if the rules to prevent such opting-out were rules you democratically agreed on beforehand.

[Proctopeo]

We memers are innocent!

Memeing about supporting mass murder is at best edgy and in poor taste.

9/11 jokes are just plane wrong.

[Northern Davincia]

Doesn't sound very voluntary, if you ask me.

It's most definitely voluntary if the rules to prevent such opting-out were rules you democratically agreed on beforehand.

Unless you voted against those rules.

[Torrocca]

It's most definitely voluntary if the rules to prevent such opting-out were rules you democratically agreed on beforehand.

Unless you voted against those rules.

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

[Northern Davincia]

Unless you voted against those rules.

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

So, if one doesn't participate, how can we gauge their consent?

[The New California Republic]

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

So, if one doesn't participate, how can we gauge their consent?

But surely that argument could be made in any democracy?