Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in Shut up about 'dual power', tool by ziq

4

ziq OP wrote

So living without a state is reproducing the state by different means?

Yes, that's exactly what they mean by dual power but fail to articulate. You should write the wiki on dual power since you understand it better than anyone since Lenin.

I appreciate your take downs, ziq, but they are hardly neccessary. They do it to themselves.

Doublespeak and entryism needs to be called out or it'll fester and innocent baby anarchists will get bamboozled into it and then I'll be even more annoyed by how outnumbered anarchists are by minarchists roleplaying as anarchists.

Why do people insist on grafting disparate ideologies onto something so beautifully simple as anarchy?

Because they're unable to conceive of anarchy. They have to keep making it like the systems they know and are comforted by so they and their peers can take anarchy seriously. It's a desperate lack of imagination, really.

Even the fucking academics can't get anarchy right. Am I the one that is wrong?

academics only read other academics and are only interested in feeding the system that lavishes them with privileges. chomsky has admitted he has read no anarchists other than... benjamin tucker I think it was. And bookchin read other anarchists just so he could shit on them for being anarchists.

5

subrosa wrote

chomsky has admitted he has read no anarchists other than... benjamin tucker I think it was.

He's read some Rudolf Rocker in the early years of WWII, and he occasionally references Daniel Guérin (who prefers libertarian socialist over anarchist). That's it.

Not that it matters much.

4

ziq OP wrote

oh yea, i always get rocker and tucker confused

4