What part of “laws are just threats of violence made by the predominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation and the cops are basically an occupying army” do we not understand?
bro, you are commenting in a community called “moretankie196”, of a marxist-leninist instance whose name is inspired in a soviet city. we do care about concepts and definitions.
Except that’s not what anarchism is, and you can’t just say “Anarchism is whatever my heart says it is”, by saying that it has a lot of different definitions to people. That’s not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
Exactly, some “anarchists” are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called “liberal” an ad hominem then what are you?
In that case you’re holding a belief that goes completely against the ideas implied by the label you use. Yes, there’s always variety of thought in all political fields but this one is an outright contradiction.
I don’t really use the label “anarchist,” as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me
What part of “laws are just threats of violence made by the predominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation and the cops are basically an occupying army” do we not understand?
I like some laws.
“laws”
are you trying to spook me?
Stirnerposting? On Lemmygrad? I never thought I’d see the day.
left unity to make fun of socdems
This could be what revitalizes the western Left
lmao my bad, will use spoiler tag next time
are you anarchist?
In a “dismantle unjust hierarchies” sense, sure, but I think states are inevitable when people make a society.
is this Vaush’s account?
I never claimed to be an anarchist
that is confusing. that sense can very well be communist. would i be wrong to presume you dont really know what are either of them?
Well “anarchist” can mean a lot of different things depending on the person so I find it more useful to just say what I agree or disagree with.
bro, you are commenting in a community called “moretankie196”, of a marxist-leninist instance whose name is inspired in a soviet city. we do care about concepts and definitions.
you are very welcome to learn, with us, though :D
Okay well that’s why I defined how I would identify as an anarchist
Except that’s not what anarchism is, and you can’t just say “Anarchism is whatever my heart says it is”, by saying that it has a lot of different definitions to people. That’s not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 most coherent anarchist theory
Thank you
Exactly, some “anarchists” are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
cool ad hominem but I never claimed to be an anarchist
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called “liberal” an ad hominem then what are you?
In that case you’re holding a belief that goes completely against the ideas implied by the label you use. Yes, there’s always variety of thought in all political fields but this one is an outright contradiction.
Also, nice Trevor Moore pic.
I don’t really use the label “anarchist,” as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me