BarrelAgedBoredom @ BarrelAgedBoredom @lemm.ee

Posts

7

Comments

1,146

Joined

2 yr. ago

If bananas were a central part of anarchist ideology and, through decades of discussion and theory, we came to a more holistic and useful conception of what constitutes a banana than the common understanding of what a banana is, I would argue in favor of using the more distinct definition. But the state is also infinitely more complicated than a banana. It's character has changed over time, often progressing in ways that past anarchists have predicted. The fact that a hundred year old conception of the state still has legs shows that not only is it accurate, but useful. You could define so many horizontal societies as states using the common definition. If we're trying to build a society distinct and separate from what currently exists, shouldn't our language reflect that? It's important to distinct, concrete markers for progress in our struggles. And the abolition of the modern state is among the top of the list in matters of importance.

Just because we can peacefully coexist and even work with the state apparatus for a time doesn't mean we don't seek it's elimination. If we're calling our end goal by the same name as the thing we wish to eliminate, it only serves to create confusion. What's the point of saying "the state is our enemy, we seek to recreate the state but minus all of the things that most people would consider functions of the state?"

Language can also be prefigurative, and part of that is using terms held in common among our group in the way we understand them. It's far easier to mold this facet of the world we wish to change if we're not immediately contradicting ourselves and confusing others. Even if you went through the route of focusing strictly on power dynamics and heirarchy without mentioning the state. Eventually it's going to come up, people are going to ask if we want to get rid of the state/government. What do you say? "We don't want to get rid of the state, we want to turn it into the state but one that's completely unrecognizable as a state to the average person"?

Is it clickbaity if he actually does what's in the title?

I generally agree with you but I do find it useful to have some description of the state. If anything, I'd say Malatesta's definition is more relevant now than it was when he wrote it. At the very least when speaking to non-anarchists who may not have a grasp on how power functions. It points out specific areas of statehood that are broadly problematic and shifts the conversation towards the lack of political power and self determination present in our everyday lives. It's a useful rhetorical device, perhaps a bit dated, but most people aren't familiar with politics outside of electoralism. Having a short description on hand can help others towards radicalization.

Having negative terms isn't inherently a bad thing either. Every ideology has things they're for and against. Being able to clearly describe the things we're against is not only helpful, it's necessary. We use terms like domination, coercion and heirarchy almost exclusively in the negative, should we get rid of those as well?

It is a bit nerdy lol, but I feel the concept of a state still has relevance in our day to day work, even if onyl as a rhetorical device. It can, and still is, used to write good theory and analysis. At the end of the day, MLs and other authoritarians use the term positively and seek to grow state power. The state is still present in our everyday lives as I (and I think plenty of other anarchists) view it as part of the kyriarchy/mega machine/whatever you want to call it. What would you refer to this particular apparatus as?

That's assuming anarchists agree with Marx's definition of the state. Which, famously, they don't. It's far too nebulous to be useful for analysis, theory or prefigurarion. Marx isn't the end all be all of left wing politics. Here's a short video going into more depth on anarchist criticisms of the Marxist conception of the state.

To quote Malatesta "Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force."

If you're going to debate anarchist ideas, you should use anarchist definitions so at the very least you understand what you're criticizing.

Definitions matter and communism has been understood as a stateless, classless, moneyless society for as long as the term has existed. The only people who would contest that definition are either ignorant or anti-communist actors who have a vested interest in muddying the waters. And I don't think those individuals should have the final say on what is and isn't communism.

Lenin didn't practice or install a communist society, and as you've noted, he didn't intend to. Council communists and even libertarian marxists (Marxist autonomists for example) are both horizontal ideologies and despite some linguistic differences from anarchism, I consider them comrades. They can call it a state if they want, anarchists would disagree. But if the only difference between us and them is definitions, I don't really see an issue. That's something that can be debated post-revolution

Thought it was gonna be this skit from limmys show haha. That one broke my brain until I binged the show and acquired a passive understanding of glaswegian

That distribution doesn't have to be top down. And as communism is a stateless society, the entire concept is predicated on the absence of top down distribution. Read up on democratic confederalism, parecon, project cybersin (admittedly done with the presence of a state but there's nothing about the system the necessitates one).

The CNT-FAI, zapatistas, rojava, and free territories of ukraine can all speak to decentralized militias. For auth-left examples just check out maoist militant orgs, they drew a ton of inspiration for anarchists in how to manage militias.

Most anarchists are prison abolitionists, I'm not going to summarize that one, look into it if you wish

Market economies can and have existed in horizontal societies. There's nothing inherently contradictory regarding trade regulations in a horizontal society

Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. In what way is that incompatible with anarchism, the ideology based on the elimination of heirarchy (the state)?

Is that how you spell that? Jesus I'm stupid

I can't remember the last time I've had a good cry to some music but goosebumps come easier. Crying is hard haha. But here's some sad stuff that runs an equal risk of giving me goosebumps or ruining my mood for the day:

Lingua Ignota - All Bitches Die (album)

Uboa - The Origin of My Depression (album)

Joy Division - Closer (album)

The Antlers - Hospice (album)

Giles Corey - Giles Corey (album)

Black Country, New Road - Ants From Up There (album)

Modest Mouse - Edit the Sad Parts (song)

The Tallest Man on Earth - Shallow Grave (album)

Songs: Ohia - Magnolia Electric co. (album)

Two Gallants - What the Toll Tells (album)

The Mountain Goats - Tallahassee (album)

Might come back an add more later!

The census info from 2020 puts the population at 21.78 million. I'm not going to scour the web for realtime population updates for a fucking comment on the Internet. And if we're going to be that pedantic, your numbers are wrong too. 25 people are born every hour in Florida. Better hope those numbers you pulled are up to date!

My juvenile tantrum? Thats hilarious coming from some dipshit that came in from nowhere to hurl insults at me and insinuate that I'm a sexual predator. Just wanna be angry cause I got a number wrong? Does your diaper need changed too? Is mommy weaning you off the teat and that's why you're grumpy? Fucking pathetic

Ok, so we aren't worth the effort because the collective shittiness of everyone on the planet is destroying the coastline. Cool. Fuck you. I didn't choose to be born here and I can't afford to leave. I'm glad there's people like you out there that are so quick to flippantly dismiss the lives of 21 million people

What do you mean? It's harder to justify improving the political situation in coastal states because of global warming?

It absolutely fucking isn't. It's "healthier" than smoking by a wide margin. So is abstaining from it. But for people already smoking, vaping will not only be better for them but can also help them kick the habit. Please keep your blatantly wrong garbage takes to yourself, misinformation like that does active harm to other people

Nicotine is terrible for anxiety, it's a stimulant not an anxiolitic. I have anxiety and started smoking when I was 16, not because of anxiety but because I'm an idiot. Don't do it. Vapes are healthier than cigarettes, if you're already a smoker. Don't start vaping if you weren't previously addicted to nicotine, it's not good for you. Nicotine isn't good for you. And it's not going to help your anxiety. Quit while you can before you're stuck with a habit that's nearly impossible to kick

So that's how I can get a new xbox. Noice

How about the florida democrats don't run shitty ex republican candidates and actually manages a decent campaign for once in their fucking lives? Nikki Freid is right there and they did her dirty. We don't need Taylor swift, we need someone who gives some modicum of a shit about florida. For being a huge "swing state" they sure don't seem to think we're worth the effort

Infringe me harder daddy ©👄©

Is there a sink in your bathroom? Why are we pissing in the kitchen sink of all places?!

I think there's some trickery afoot. His true nature is being concealed

I see. So he is like one of those double wall pitchers, but filled with his sweet juices instead of a vacuum. The secrets are contained in the pitcher