Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree OP wrote

A soft response to some concerns: Let's say that the difference between a cloth and a skycloth is that one is a reified symbol that comes to define what it represents instead of what is represented by it being the thing that defines it.

A harder response: Personally I'd say that at the least once the revolution is won (hah) it'd be a good idea to get rid of the concept of flags completely. They are territory markers in this world, and anarchists do not recognise borders.

4

sudo wrote

This particular skycloth needs to be burned, yes.

Also, why are US schoolchildren doing the Roman/Nazi salute to the US flag?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

sudo wrote

Interesting, I didn't know about that, or that it wasn't actually used in Rome.

Also, why would you want to burn leftist flags? Even if you're an anti-communist anarchist, would you want to burn the anarchist flags as well? If so, then if misanthropy had a flag, would you want do burn that as well?

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Statism is pretty good though. Look at any nation that had communist statists running it in the 20th century and not only did they massively improve the base level of life for poorest people this planet has known: Literacy rates, reducing infant mortality to better than most capitalist nations, education and healthcare for all, land redistribution to the poorest, whilst also being able to defend themselves from capitalist encirclement.

But they also were able to send revolutionaries to the third world and force capitalists out of hyper exploitation areas like Africa.

Whereas if we compare that to any anarchist society.... Oh wait there have been no anarchist societies that lasted longer than 12 months.

2

BlackFlagged wrote

We didn't achieve all that because of the state, we achieved it despite the state. And the state tried to sabotage our efforts at every opportunity, eventually succeeding and descending back to capitalism.

Trust people to curate their communities, not states.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

SpiritOfTito wrote

Who committed more atrocities since 1922 -usa or ussr?

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

SpiritOfTito wrote

Lmao nice sources. In for a penny out for a pound: Go fuck yourself

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

"That state is less genocidal than that other state" is a whack argument, bruv.

2

SpiritOfTito wrote

Fuck that. If you expropriate the states from their material and historical conditions sure.

Cuba: Had upwards of 800 assassination attempts on its leader, poltical murders by the usa, had its factories bombed and its farms bombed to provoke a food crisis.

Yugoslavia: Dismemebered by NATO post ussr collapse

ussr: Went through world war 1 until the bolsheviks came to power on the back of promising to end the world war, from day 1 of their existence 14 capitalist nations invade the ussr with the last japanese soldier leaving in 1922, this militarised state now at war since 1914 paves the way for a machiavelli like Stalin to take power, in1931 he says 'we need to do what the capitalist nations did in 50 to 100 years in the space of 10 or we're finished" and by 1938 the ussr is again invaded by Germany.

I don't dispute the atrocities that went on in various communist states. What I do dispute is the propagandised angle the capitalist nations take on them while neglecting to mention the constant war like state they were in due to capitalist nations attacking them repeatedly.

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

And yet despite all that, they still failed to achieve communism. State communism doesn't work because the state is always under attack from external forces.

Decentralise and there's nothing to attack.

Install a ruler, and the ruler will be corrupted every time and when the ruler fails, the entire society fails. It's basic logic. Centralised power structures are doomed to fail.

3

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

My problem with your assessment is you seem to say "there was no point trying".

You seem to say it didnt end in utopia so it wasnt worth it. It wasn't worth the bolsheviks ending world war 1 and installing a genuine democracy (so afraid were the bourgeois by that revolution pretty much all capitalist nations gave men the vote the following year).

You seem to say it wasn't worth castro lifting up the poorest in his country from the illiterate, starving, gambling, prostitute and sex destination for bored middle and upper class americans it was under Batista.

Which I profoundly disagree with

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

I didn't say it wasn't worth trying, but what's the point of repeating the same action again and again when it always results in failure? Humans are too flawed to be trusted with ultimate power. Statism has never resulted in communism, so try something else.

And there will never be an utopia. Only permanent revolution.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

SpiritOfTito wrote

Statist scum

Lmao I'm not a statist

you will face assassination at every turn

Funny that cos history says its normally anachists facing the wall

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

SpiritOfTito wrote

Who said I hated anarchism? Or love genocide?

Go elsewhere for your keyboard tough guy talks kid

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

You're boring. Fuck off

0