LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This kinda clashes with your earlier posts about stealing property and what would presumably happen to those who say No though.

Seizing the means of production doesn't mean destruction or chaos. :^)

Sure it does, it's not gonna happen peacefully.

[Torrocca]

Seizing the means of production doesn't mean destruction or chaos. :^)

Sure it does, it's not gonna happen peacefully.

Still doesn't imply destruction or chaos. :^)

[Greate Boston]

This kinda clashes with your earlier posts about stealing property and what would presumably happen to those who say No though.

Seizing the means of production doesn't mean destruction or chaos. :^)

Historically, it has lead to it most of the time.

[Torrocca]

Seizing the means of production doesn't mean destruction or chaos. :^)

Historically, it has lead to it most of the time.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

[Aellex]

So is nuclear holocaust if you wanna go that way...

Hint hint: Anarchism doesn't mean rampant destruction, chaos, or """evilness""".

Anarchy is the embodiment of all that, indeed.
Nuclear annihilation would be a quicker and more merciful state than continuous Anarchy.
Probably less deadly too.

[Torrocca]

Hint hint: Anarchism doesn't mean rampant destruction, chaos, or """evilness""".

Anarchy is the embodiment of all that, indeed.
Nuclear annihilation would be a quicker and more merciful state than continuous Anarchy.
Probably less deadly too.

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anarchy is the embodiment of all that, indeed.
Nuclear annihilation would be a quicker and more merciful state than continuous Anarchy.
Probably less deadly too.

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

[Torrocca]

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

Nah.

[Cekoviu]

Ez pz: Anarchism's the solution. Or just any form of Libertarian Leftism really.

So is nuclear holocaust if you wanna go that way...

p o s a d i s m

[Aellex]

Anarchy is the embodiment of all that, indeed.
Nuclear annihilation would be a quicker and more merciful state than continuous Anarchy.
Probably less deadly too.

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

Well, it's precisely because of all of those things I can call Anarchy what I did because I am right than to do so.

[Torrocca]

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

Well, it's precisely because of all of those things I can call Anarchy what I did because I am right than to do so.

Nah.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

Nah.

Mutual aid can and does exist within hierarchies, but you have not done anything to discount the notion that hierarchies are natural and inevitable as my study suggests.

[Cekoviu]

Historically, it has lead to it most of the time.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

Historically, ethnostates have led to genocide and terrible living conditions most of the time.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically deport all non-Aryans without murdering people.

[Torrocca]

Nah.

Mutual aid can and does exist within hierarchies, but you have not done anything to discount the notion that hierarchies aren't natural and inevitable as my study suggests.

Maybe take a crack at that before suggesting that.

[Greate Boston]

Imagine being unironically this afraid of Anarchism, contrary to all working examples of Anarchism existing throughout history and existing today and existing to all actual political theory regarding what Anarchism actually is, to the point of calling it the literal embodiment of evil.

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

Violence is the mainstream way of organizing societies though. Violence is required for a hierarchy to be established, and later maintained (and historically, has always been used as well)

Historically, it has lead to it most of the time.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

It technically does imply it though. I know this example is in poor taste, and as a fellow anarchist it hurts me to say it, but saying "seizing the means of production doesn't necessarily require violence and chaos" is along the line of saying "removing [enter here group of society] from our society won't necessarily require violence and chaos"

Those owning said means of production won't just accept to no longer have it (unless you're playing a videogame and have a 100 Speechcraft or something). You're either gonna go "fine. You can have your property then" (which would mean you're not gonna seize property, which makes the point moot) or you're gonna have to use violence, destruction, and chaos to achieve your goal.

[Aellex]

Well, it's precisely because of all of those things I can call Anarchy what I did because I am right than to do so.

Nah.

A response about as convincing as Anarchism is successful.

[Torrocca]

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically deport all non-Aryans without murdering people.

"If you change words and context and meaning then this one thing is just like this other thing!"

Cek pls

[Ostroeuropa]

Mutual aid can and does exist within hierarchies, but you have not done anything to discount the notion that hierarchies aren't natural and inevitable as my study suggests.

Maybe take a crack at that before suggesting that.

Does it contain any actual empirical study or just the ramblings of an anarchist asserting their worldview?

[Torrocca]

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

It technically does imply it though. I know this example is in poor taste, and as a fellow anarchist it hurts me to say it, but saying "seizing the means of production doesn't necessarily require violence and chaos" is along the line of saying "removing [enter here group of society] from our society won't necessarily require violence and chaos"

Those owning said means of production won't just accept to no longer have it (unless you're playing a videogame and have a 100 Speechcraft or something). You're either gonna go "fine. You can have your property then" (which would mean you're not gonna seize property, which makes the point moot) or you're gonna have to use violence, destruction, and chaos to achieve your goal.

Sure, I agree with that. That doesn't mean you can't convince people (at least some of the owning class, at least) to peacefully accept a democratic, non-hierarchical model. Our Bread Santa himself was a class traitor, after all.

[Cekoviu]

"If you change words and context and meaning then this one thing is just like this other thing!"

Cek pls

ordinarily i would agree, but really, those two statements are almost identical in terms of logicality. not that i mean to equate anarchism and nazism, of course.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

Violence is the mainstream way of organizing societies though. Violence is required for a hierarchy to be established, and later maintained (and historically, has always been used as well)

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply it. You could technically seize the means of production without causing destruction or chaos.

It technically does imply it though. I know this example is in poor taste, and as a fellow anarchist it hurts me to say it, but saying "seizing the means of production doesn't necessarily require violence and chaos" is along the line of saying "removing [enter here group of society] from our society won't necessarily require violence and chaos"

Those owning said means of production won't just accept to no longer have it (unless you're playing a videogame and have a 100 Speechcraft or something). You're either gonna go "fine. You can have your property then" (which would mean you're not gonna seize property, which makes the point moot) or you're gonna have to use violence, destruction, and chaos to achieve your goal.

Societies may utilize violence but hierarchy based on violence is untenable compared to social status. Societies which conflate and merge prowess at violence with social status distract from that fundamental point. (I.E, the better at violence, the more status you are afforded.)

We've routinely seen how violence flounders compared to social status when the two are pitted against eachother, and how social status can be leveraged against the violent to win conflicts.

The point is, social status hierarchies appear to be natural and inevitable.

[Torrocca]

Maybe take a crack at that before suggesting that.

Does it contain any actual empirical study or just the ramblings of an anarchist asserting their worldview?

It contains his outlooks based on studies of human groups and his own surveying of animals living in groups during his time as a surveyor for the Tsar of Russia.

Dude was literally a scientist, after all.

"If you change words and context and meaning then this one thing is just like this other thing!"

Cek pls

ordinarily i would agree, but really, those two statements are almost identical in terms of logicality. not that i mean to equate anarchism and nazism, of course.

Fair. I just gave my reasoning to saying that, though, if you wanna engage that. :V

[Greate Boston]

Violence is the mainstream way of organizing societies though. Violence is required for a hierarchy to be established, and later maintained (and historically, has always been used as well)

It technically does imply it though. I know this example is in poor taste, and as a fellow anarchist it hurts me to say it, but saying "seizing the means of production doesn't necessarily require violence and chaos" is along the line of saying "removing [enter here group of society] from our society won't necessarily require violence and chaos"

Those owning said means of production won't just accept to no longer have it (unless you're playing a videogame and have a 100 Speechcraft or something). You're either gonna go "fine. You can have your property then" (which would mean you're not gonna seize property, which makes the point moot) or you're gonna have to use violence, destruction, and chaos to achieve your goal.

Societies may utilize violence but hierarchy based on violence is untenable compared to social status. Societies which conflate and merge prowess at violence with social status distract from that fundamental point. (I.E, the better at violence, the more status you are afforded.)

We've routinely seen how violence flounders compared to social status when the two are pitted against eachother, and how social status can be leveraged against the violent to win conflicts.

The point is, social status hierarchies appear to be natural and inevitable.

Horizontal social status social classes (i.e. "that guy has bigger muscles, he's probably gonna do better as a laborer", "that guy seems to be smart, maybe let him make him do the thinking", etc.) are natural, but social hierarchies with different class ranks (i.e. "the smart guy is superior to the laborer and the laborer should do what he says", etc.) are not natural, because they're only established through violence (It is natural for me to want vertical hierarchies, but they don't exist naturally, and I have to make them via violence).

At least, that's how I see it.

[Cekoviu]

Does it contain any actual empirical study or just the ramblings of an anarchist asserting their worldview?

It contains his outlooks based on studies of human groups and his own surveying of animals living in groups during his time as a surveyor for the Tsar of Russia.

Dude was literally a scientist, after all.

ordinarily i would agree, but really, those two statements are almost identical in terms of logicality. not that i mean to equate anarchism and nazism, of course.

Fair. I just gave my reasoning to saying that, though, if you wanna engage that. :V

aye. i doubt that many people are going to be willing to forfeit their assets to anarchists without force, so that's a bit of a hole there.

[Torrocca]

It contains his outlooks based on studies of human groups and his own surveying of animals living in groups during his time as a surveyor for the Tsar of Russia.

Dude was literally a scientist, after all.



Fair. I just gave my reasoning to saying that, though, if you wanna engage that. :V

aye. i doubt that many people are going to be willing to forfeit their assets to anarchists without force, so that's a bit of a hole there.

Fair enough. It'd make more sense to say that it's technically possible in some cases for workers to seize the means of production without any destruction or chaos involved.