CaptainACAB wrote on February 7, 2021 at 5:00 AM (edited on February 7, 2021 at 5:21 AM)

Reply to comment by BrowseDuringClass1917 in Point by point reading of "the federationist manifesto" by ziq

Don’t know what NazAn is

Nationalist Anarchist.

but it is very obvious that any serious political ideology, such as 'federationist’ anarchism with a long and cherished history

'federationist’ anarchism doesn't have a long, cherished history, though; it's literally just some mish-mash of already existing ideas. Its manifesto isn't even a year old and it's the only text in the Anarchist library to have the category of "federationism". Marxism, by comparison, has more than 100, Nationalism has 69, Democratic Socialism has 12. Were federationism not new, it would have more texts both critical and supportive of it.

can not be refuted in a series of point by point zingers.

There's literally no reason for why it can't. If there was one, you've yet to provide it.

People write whole papers, whole books on these disputes, this twitter whining is not worth anybody’s time to read.

So what? The idea that a critique has no worth because it doesn't reach some arbitrary standard of length is too narrow-minded to take seriously.

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote on February 8, 2021 at 4:21 AM

'federationist’ anarchism doesn't have a long, cherished history, though; it's literally just some mish-mash of already existing ideas.

From the article I was under the assumption it was just a reiteration of the same ideological stance that organizations like the FAI and many other early anarchist organization.

There's literally no reason for why it can't. If there was one, you've yet to provide it.

Because it can’t adequately disprove any points made by the essay which is being targeted for point-by-point “commentary”. Nor can it propose any sort of counter-position which would be necessary to create constructive discourse.

So what? The idea that a critique has no worth because it doesn't reach some arbitrary standard of length is too narrow-minded to take seriously.

It isn’t about arbitrary length, obviously. It’s about having enough worthwhile content to make the discourse meaningful or useful at all. This twitter thread is literally a waste of time to read, for anybody, it’s useless, it’s noise in the void.