What do you think of Communism

[Australian rePublic]

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

Anarchism is not synonymous with pacifism, again. Anarchists are not against the use of force towards the enemies of the anarchist project. They wouldn't have been hucking dynamite into the Tsar's carriage if they had qualms about that. Anarchists and communists want the same thing as an end goal - a stateless society. Where they differ is their position on whether or not establishing or taking over a capital-s State is required to get there. States, after all, are not synonymous with the usage of force.

There's a word for that. Terrorism. Nice to know that you're a terrorist sympathiser.

EDITTED: Fearing that I'll deliberately taken out of context, I'll act preemptively urge you to read the post immeidately after this one. Do not allow Nilokeras' inability and/or unwillingness to provide context to fool you

[Australian rePublic]

Knowing that Niokeras' signiture leads you to this post-Redacted because Nilokeras is incapable of providing context and/or too intellectually dishonest to do so.

I'm not going to let him/her make me look like an arse because he/she is too intellectually dishonest to provide context and/or incapable of doing so.

Context matters and Niokeras inability and/or unwillingness to recongise that will not be rewarded by being diverted to this post which previously took me out of context. I admitted to making a mistake due to lack of context, but Niokeras still chooses to harp on about it, which I'll assume is because he/she is incapable of forming an intellectually honest argument. And I'm not going to let him/her and I'm not going to reward such behaviour

Go here for context:
viewtopic.php?p=40584546#p40584546

[Kubra]

Which is, you know, exactly what we want, innit?

Yes, you're correct. But the difference lies with how anarchism treats the state and how to eliminate it.
Anarchism states that the state and its institutions can be abolished instantaneously. At the same time though, implying that an invisible force and of one of such complexity can be just "disappeared" is willful ignorance.

Anarchism requires force to maintain itself- that's simply an inevitability, since all societies require force to maintain themselves. The problem with anarchism lies with what a "state" is even supposed to be, because as mentioned previously it is a complex force with numerous definitions, none of which can really "fit" statehood.
On the one end, one can argue that anarchism abolishes the state if the state is a "compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory"- as defined by Weber. At the same time though, the definition of "a political unit with sovereignty over a given territory" gives far more ambiguity to whether or not anarchism has actually abolished the state. Is a decentralized commune- just as an example- that still holds supreme power over the population not a state? Even if the commune is collectively ruled, it's unrealistic to assume that the entire commune will take part in the day-to-day running of the commune. Hence it's far more likely that a politically conscious elite will hold power and hence exert power (sovereignty) over the people.
Again, the definition of a "state" is complex and varies wildly between authors, but it seems to me that anarchism doesn't abolish the state but simply weakens it and states that it has.

Real "statelessness" is not only the lack of a state but the lack of a need to enforce the lack of a state. If one needs to enforce the idea that there is no state, then is it really any different from actually having one?

The long-form of the weberian definition was given for the sake of clarifying what it is. We are Marxists, no? It ain't ours.
In any case, the joke there is that what we call "statelessness" in our parlance is a state to others, but it's the most worthless kind of discussion to have, and generally was not a topic of discussion made by people who mattered when this sort of thing, er, mattered.

As for the matter of "instantaneously", it is important to note that for the classical anarchist "the state" is really just the oppressive functions used to prop up capital and private property (er, most of it, that's a different topic). That's a much easier thing when put like that, innit?

Anarchism is not synonymous with pacifism, again. Anarchists are not against the use of force towards the enemies of the anarchist project. They wouldn't have been hucking dynamite into the Tsar's carriage if they had qualms about that. Anarchists and communists want the same thing as an end goal - a stateless society. Where they differ is their position on whether or not establishing or taking over a capital-s State is required to get there. States, after all, are not synonymous with the usage of force.

There's a word for that. Terrorism. Nice to know that you're a terrorist sympathiser

What, explaining a political ideology that involved terrorism is itself terrorist sympathy?
By Nikoleras's own admission, they are not an anarchist. I ain't even, we just don't like you lot speaking like you know actually know about the stuff.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Stop taking Nilokeras seriously. He/she is a self-proclaimed terrorist sympathiser. Terrorist sympathisers deserve no Creedance.

Is this supposed to be some sort of epic own or something lol. Pretty much everyone is if they know enough about the world. Rebels in the jungle of Myanmar are very much terrorists by definition but they're also the moral side of the conflict and worth supporting.

[Australian rePublic]

There's a word for that. Terrorism. Nice to know that you're a terrorist sympathiser

What, explaining a political ideology that involved terrorism is itself terrorist sympathy?
By Nikoleras's own admission, they are not an anarchist. I ain't even, we just don't like you lot speaking like you know actually know about the stuff.

No, explaining a political ideology that requires terrorism doesn't make you a terrorist sympathiser. Advocating for that ideology does

[Kubra]

What, explaining a political ideology that involved terrorism is itself terrorist sympathy?
By Nikoleras's own admission, they are not an anarchist. I ain't even, we just don't like you lot speaking like you know actually know about the stuff.

A terrorist is someone who will use violence against civilians to achieve a political goal. Nikolera has stated that he/she supports the use of violence against anyone who opposes anarchism. Seems to fit the description of terrorism to me

No, they said anarchists do. And as they said: they are not an anarchist.
It's not exactly a secret that anarchists used to be *the* terrorists, man.

[Australian rePublic]

A terrorist is someone who will use violence against civilians to achieve a political goal. Nikolera has stated that he/she supports the use of violence against anyone who opposes anarchism. Seems to fit the description of terrorism to me

No, they said anarchists do. And as they said: they are not an anarchist.
It's not exactly a secret that anarchists used to be *the* terrorists, man.

My mistake

[Australian rePublic]

Stop taking Nilokeras seriously. He/she is a self-proclaimed terrorist sympathiser. Terrorist sympathisers deserve no Creedance.

Is this supposed to be some sort of epic own or something lol. Pretty much everyone is if they know enough about the world. Rebels in the jungle of Myanmar are very much terrorists by definition but they're also the moral side of the conflict and worth supporting.

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor? Are you the one oppressing people or the one fighting against oppression? Advocating violence against those who disagree with you in good faith is definitely the former, henceforth terrorism

[Republica da Comunidade Unida]

Se realmente analisarmos a fundo o que propõe a ideologia comunista e o que escreveu Marx, seria uma sociedade no mínimo justa, onde exista igualdade para todos, sem propriedade privada, mas não pq alguém lhe tomou, mas pq todos tem tudo e ao mesmo tempo não existe mais o estado pra controlar nada. Mas acho pouco provável disso acontecer um dia, seja pelo contexto econômico, social e principalmente político, sempre alguém vai querer ter o mínimo de poder nas mãos.

[Australian rePublic]

Se realmente analisarmos a fundo o que propõe a ideologia comunista e o que escreveu Marx, seria uma sociedade no mínimo justa, onde exista igualdade para todos, sem propriedade privada, mas não pq alguém lhe tomou, mas pq todos tem tudo e ao mesmo tempo não existe mais o estado pra controlar nada. Mas acho pouco provável disso acontecer um dia, seja pelo contexto econômico, social e principalmente político, sempre alguém vai querer ter o mínimo de poder nas mãos.

English, please

[Kubra]

Is this supposed to be some sort of epic own or something lol. Pretty much everyone is if they know enough about the world. Rebels in the jungle of Myanmar are very much terrorists by definition but they're also the moral side of the conflict and worth supporting.

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor? Are you the one oppressing people or the one fighting against oppression? Advocating violence against those who disagree with you in good faith is definitely the former, henceforth terrorism

"enemies of anarchist project" were generally assumed to be government officials, nobility, cops, that sort of thing. Standard targets during insurgencies.
And of course priests, but this was kiiiind of a left wing thing at the time. This is all past tense, because the "anarchist project" collapsed nearly a century ago.

[Nilokeras]

There's a word for that. Terrorism. Nice to know that you're a terrorist sympathiser

Stop taking Nilokeras seriously. He/she is a self-proclaimed terrorist sympathiser. Terrorist sympathisers deserve no Creedance.

what else is there to say other than simply, lmao

[El Lazaro]

Is this supposed to be some sort of epic own or something lol. Pretty much everyone is if they know enough about the world. Rebels in the jungle of Myanmar are very much terrorists by definition but they're also the moral side of the conflict and worth supporting.

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor? Are you the one oppressing people or the one fighting against oppression? Advocating violence against those who disagree with you in good faith is definitely the former, henceforth terrorism

What about advocating for violence against people who disagree with you while justifying it under false pretenses? If one cannot be a terrorist while acting in bad faith, then a lot of totally-not-terrorists have been slandered.

[Australian rePublic]

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor? Are you the one oppressing people or the one fighting against oppression? Advocating violence against those who disagree with you in good faith is definitely the former, henceforth terrorism

"enemies of anarchist project" were generally assumed to be government officials, nobility, cops, that sort of thing. Standard targets during insurgencies.
And of course priests, but this was kiiiind of a left wing thing at the time. This is all past tense, because the "anarchist project" collapsed nearly a century ago.

"Enemies of the project" seems wider than that. Also, killing cops acting in good faith and nobility who just happen to have a lot of money aren't exactly on the right side...

[Australian rePublic]

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor? Are you the one oppressing people or the one fighting against oppression? Advocating violence against those who disagree with you in good faith is definitely the former, henceforth terrorism

What about advocating for violence against people who disagree with you while justifying it under false pretenses? If one cannot be a terrorist while acting in bad faith, then a lot of totally-not-terrorists have been slandered.

Very few terrorists think that they're acting in bad faith. Most terrorists think that they're doing the right thing for the white race, or for Allah, or whatever their cause is. Most don't think they're acting in bad faith, they're just badly misguided

[El Lazaro]

What about advocating for violence against people who disagree with you while justifying it under false pretenses? If one cannot be a terrorist while acting in bad faith, then a lot of totally-not-terrorists have been slandered.

Very few terrorists think that they're acting in bad faith. Most terrorists think that they're doing the right thing for the white race, or for Allah, or whatever their cause is. Most don't think they're acting in bad faith, they're just badly misguided

How do you know? How many terrorists have you talked to?

[Nilokeras]

Very few terrorists think that they're acting in bad faith. Most terrorists think that they're doing the right thing for the white race, or for Allah, or whatever their cause is. Most don't think they're acting in bad faith, they're just badly misguided

How do you know? How many terrorists have you talked to?

other than me, of course

[El Lazaro]

How do you know? How many terrorists have you talked to?

other than me, of course

Honestly, I’m getting the sense you’re doing terrorism in bad faith (the wrong way), so I’m suspending your terrorist badge until you earn it back with good faith posts. Your career in terrorism won’t get very far with this kind of intellectually dishonest and un-terroristic conduct.

[Kubra]

"enemies of anarchist project" were generally assumed to be government officials, nobility, cops, that sort of thing. Standard targets during insurgencies.
And of course priests, but this was kiiiind of a left wing thing at the time. This is all past tense, because the "anarchist project" collapsed nearly a century ago.

"Enemies of the project" seems wider than that. Also, killing cops acting in good faith and nobility who just happen to have a lot of money aren't exactly on the right side...

In practice, not really. These were who were killed.
Killing cops is pretty big on the to-do list of really any insurgent group. But as for literal titled nobility, u wot m8?

[Australian rePublic]

How do you know? How many terrorists have you talked to?

other than me, of course

I already said that you're not a terrorist sympathiser and that I made a mistake

[Australian rePublic]

"Enemies of the project" seems wider than that. Also, killing cops acting in good faith and nobility who just happen to have a lot of money aren't exactly on the right side...

In practice, not really. These were who were killed.
Killing cops is pretty big on the to-do list of really any insurgent group. But as for literal titled nobility, u wot m8?

Fair

[Nilokeras]

other than me, of course

Honestly, I’m getting the sense you’re doing terrorism in bad faith (the wrong way), so I’m suspending your terrorist badge until you earn it back with good faith posts. Your career in terrorism won’t get very far with this kind of intellectually dishonest and un-terroristic conduct.

put me back on the beat, chief, I gotta solve this big case

(the case is duct taping twenty five muskets together and shooting Louis Philippe with them)

[Kubra]

In practice, not really. These were who were killed.
Killing cops is pretty big on the to-do list of really any insurgent group. But as for literal titled nobility, u wot m8?

Fair

And I suppose you'll be pleased to know the greek orthodox priests generally got a pass. Anti-clerical violence (outside of russia) was generally restricted to catholic priests, because they made themselves really just like *hated* by even the moderate left in the period.

[Australian rePublic]

Fair

And I suppose you'll be pleased to know the greek orthodox priests generally got a pass. Anti-clerical violence (outside of russia) was generally restricted to catholic priests, because they made themselves really just like *hated* by even the moderate left in the period.

I'm not blind to corruption, even in the Orthodox Church

[Kubra]

And I suppose you'll be pleased to know the greek orthodox priests generally got a pass. Anti-clerical violence (outside of russia) was generally restricted to catholic priests, because they made themselves really just like *hated* by even the moderate left in the period.

I'm not blind to corruption, even in the Orthodox Church

Nah it ain't that, I mentioned the whole priest thing and I figure if greek orthodox priests had been given summary executions on the regular you'd be less than pleased to find that out. I mean that's a *big* point of contention when it comes to the catholic side, they'll never forget it.