Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zoom_zip wrote

fuck anarcho-cred. i'm a landowner now. i'm better than you. i own this shit. you're my fucking subjects. you think i'm gonna carry on being an anarchist if i'm not poor as shit? tithe me, motherfuckers. fill my pockets with your taxes. kiss my feet and look up to me so i can see the tears in your eyes. work. work until you die and one day you might get a fraction of what i have. look around you. what do you own? nothing. i own everything. i'm the fucking boss. the crown on my head is worth more to me than your life. you are subservient to me. your existence is in the palm of my hand. i am all power and all authority. i am your god.

w-what's that?

it's not real? it was just a test?

haha i knew that.

i was just joking too. it was just a joke.

obviously i was just joking.

why are you all looking at me like that?

9

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

I see here you got some talent, fren.

3

moonlune wrote

I've just come home from a weekend of wwoofing and I'm hyped as fuck to slave away for the next ten years to buy myself a plot of land.

5

peppercornbingbong wrote

I would take it.

Capital and land are tools to fight with. Sure your “cred” might take a hit with some extremists and ideologues, but personally I am about instrumentality and pragmatic action.

4

OdiousOutlaw wrote

If [insert state of your choice] handed over a chunk of their land and accumulated wealth to you, our friendly neighborhood message board dweller, would you take it?

Only if I can pick the land. I'm taking the first country club/golf course I can and demolishing it.

Okay, that's a lie, I'd take it anyway because why would I go through the trouble of paying for land in order to build a home when I can get it for free? Yeah, I could technically live anywhere, law be damned, but I'd rather not risk arrest for "trespassing".

4

Fool wrote

The state has weighed up the benefits of providing me land, and found them beneficial to themselves. This does not exclude the exchange also being beneficial to myself. I am probably not a radical if I have been chosen to receive control of this boon.

Reparations are not the end goal, only a step along the way. The state understands that it is providing, with the intention of bring the appeased under the fold of the apparatus, but if the appeased can remain Cognizant of the apparatus, they can improve their own situation and plan for longer term gains.

Accepting allowances from the state does not come at no cost to the state. Each time the system makes allowances it reduces the capacity to make future allowances, each time more people become aware of the root cause. There is of course problems with relying on this method...

But I have spent long enough typing this already to expand more. Happy for critique.

3

a_zed_9 wrote

Very interesting, I agree that often these sorts of "concessions" even when "hard fought" often ammmount to little more then "appeasement" (what I would describe as recuperation back into the system) however I don't see exactly what "cost" or perhaps better stated "detriment" this brings the state.

It is clear I think that institutions such as settler colonialism or racism or even labor allow for profit to be extracted by civilization to greater amd greater extents. However profit would still be extracted if certain parts were missing. So even though full recuperate into the system in a manner that meant no profit was extracted from a group (something that doesn't even happen to white people really) would still only slow the profit extracted by civilization, not necessarily harm it.

1

NoPotatoes wrote (edited )

I'll take the land.

But I do not think the hypothetical is plausible. When has a state ever given land to people, for free? What does the state stand to gain from such a transaction?

2

a_zed_9 wrote (edited )

States often give settlers free (or extremely cheap) land. This actually still happens in America (I forget where/when but there was some story from maybe a decade ago of some town doing it) and Isreal still does this though it usually jumps through a few hoops first since these settlements go against international law.

Edit: if it's not apparent the gain for the state is to push out indigenous people, "civilize" the land (primarily make it productive), and benefit colonizers as a class/indentity.

5

NoPotatoes wrote

Good points. But as the landholder, I can elect to not exile any indigenous people or other indigenous elements. I can gum up plans for settlement.

1

a_zed_9 wrote

Ultimately though this amounts to even less then the current reservation system (assuming this land is still part of the U.S. am thus subject to its law). As well even if you were given large swaths of land, ultimately your piece of land would be miniscule compared to that which is being settled. As well if this piece of land had any ability to harm the institution of settler colonialism it could through other mechanisms (such as zoning laws or even fabricated evidence or just outright force) be dismantled/reclaimed.

1

NoPotatoes wrote

Yes, I would expect that if the government gave me land to help them settle/colonize, they would eventually take back the land after realizing that I am actively working against their goal rather than for it. But I could certainly slow them down in the process.

2

a_zed_9 wrote

I wouldn't, I've been around a couple land projects and I have no interest in them now. As for personal gains of the land or wealth, I have no interest as I hope to build a lifestyle that isn't sedentary, and that escapes wealth a property as much as possible.

As for "waiting to the revolution". You could say I'm a nohlist in this manner as I'm against the idea of a revolution. But even in such a case my opposition to property and wealth would still exist.

I think with the added stipulation that non-white people have to read the bread book before accepting the land makes it even worse imo.

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

I would take it and turn it into a public-domain land trust, duh.

But no, your hypothetical situation is hardly likely in settler America. Tho just in case it happens, use your brain and consider the above.

2

Garbear104 wrote

I think its funny yall salty fucks feel the need to keep simping for indigenous states and police. Pretty big difference between being gifted a plot of land as an indivudal randomly compared to actively propogandizing and begging for help in founding your own state rather than pursuing anarchy. Dont be sorry comrade. Just know that any state will be resisted all the same. The peoples boot is still a boot after all.

−4

ziq admin wrote

accuse someone of being a police apologist again with no evidence and i'll ban you

4

dedcopcrw wrote (edited )

Just to be clear, if some folks get land and set up a government with cops and boarders and "democratic" body making decisions for everyone, you're ok with that?

−3

ziq wrote

How many fucking times do I have to say no.

Banned for harassment.

4

ziq admin wrote

Any further fragile murican settler throwaways accusing me or others of liking cops / states for supporting reparations will be banned without warning. There's been enough reddit settler trash here today for a lifetime.

6

OdiousOutlaw wrote

simping

That word is slang from, like, the early 2000's at the most recent and everyone still insists on using it as a verb when it's an acronym.

Damn, white people really are 5 years behind; they'll be using "lit" in 2085 at this rate.

3

ziq wrote

the only reddit dipshit word more annoying than that one is 'based'

actually i take it back, simping is worse

3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Yeah, "based" is just a word derived from one rapper in particular; doesn't mean much.

"Simp" was misogynistic from the start.

4