Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

buzz wrote

Me too, and I am also against anarchism. Instead, I want a society where everyones needs are met, without the imposition of coercive labour agreements. This is to be achieved through direct democracy, the abolition of private property, and common ownership of factors of production that will ensure a stable, wholey anti-anarchist concept.

0

throwaway wrote

Fuck yeah, thank you! I'm definitely not a non-anarchist, I've always been against. In fact I'm not a non-right-leaning off-center centrist, which I'm also against, have always been and was not in the past, neither against nor not for.

I'm sure this is what OP is looking for, too.

4

robottroymacclure wrote

thats a funny way to put it. Anarchism is, "bad"? what does that even mean? please articulate your position if you want a serious response.

-10

AwesomeGullotines wrote

I think most of it is a big violence machine, thats all. You can have your opinion, Its just that i don't find anarchism helpful in anyway.

4

buzz wrote

The nation-state and capitalism is one big violent machine - just because you benefit from this doesnt mean it is good (L:

4

robottroymacclure wrote

you think Anarchism is a big violence machine? you dont find it helpful? helpful for who? these are not well thought out positions. maybe you should consider your response before you reply and try giving an example cause it sound like you are trolling or just wasting our time.

4

GrimWillow wrote

It's incredibly harmful to consider the one ideology fighting the root of oppression as being "bad". I'm also curious what kinds of leaps in logic u/AwesomeGullotines had to make to come to these dangerous conclusions.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

Disagree. It is a fact that Anarchism really is the one ideology fighting the root of oppression, whether or not anyone believes otherwise. You could believe the lies of victimhood from nazis when they describe the mechanisms of "white genocide", but it won't make it actually true in any circumstance.

The reason I say this is because Anarchism is characterized distinctly by its intersectional struggle against oppression. It seeks to rid every oppressive relation socially and in organizing. This is why all Anarchists are feminists, anti-white-supremacy, anti-transphobia, anti-colonial, anti-state, and anti-capitalist. The common thread is to put a stop to abusive relations in general. There is no other ideology that attempts to route out all oppression across the board like this, whether you think it is true or not.

Edit: For the record, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that people have different beliefs in what is true, I'm only suggesting that no other ideology aims to seek out and stop oppression across the board as much as Anarchism objectively. People often believe Anarchism is about chaos, "communism"(read:state socialism), or even just "violence", but this is not what Anarchism is, and Anarchism is not what they are discussing when they believe that.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

This is empirically untrue through. Anarchists believe all kinds of mutually exclusive things. Possibly the only thing all of you are is anti-state...

Any "Anarchists" that reduce the struggle to something without intersectional solidarity with the oppressed, count among the ones that incorrectly refer to themselves as "Anarchist". If an "Anarchist" is not feminist, then they cannot be called "Anarchist" due to the fact that patriarchy is a forced hierarchy in our world; and so it goes with addressing any other kind of forced hierarchy established in our society, from subtle ablest legislature to an entire legal system that allows the rich to have their way with the poor.

Anarchists are faced with the dilemma of having been born as the labor livestock in a right-wing authoritarian patriarchal white-supremacist ablist queerphobic globalizing/colonizing corporate techno-state that is rapidly inflicting severe amounts of punishment to anyone struggling to end its reign of world-wide terror. I'm not surprised that many are nihilists, but if they no longer seek to effectively struggle against oppression, then I might struggle to describe this as Anarchist activity.

Edit: I forgot to respond to this:

...there are also anarchists who latch on to reform struggles and back statist projects like Rojava, so even saying all anarchists are consistently anti-state is hard. I'll agree that more or less all of you agree on the rejection of capitalism.

Just because Anarchists will show support for something non-Anarchist that might leverage the ultimate aims of liberation, doesn't mean that they suddenly want the oppression that it entails. For instance, we're often forced to choose between one oppressor or the other, of course we'll end up having to compromise our values. It is to metaphorically choose between a shock collar with inward spikes or a shock collar that has padding on the inside. Just because you struggle to get the padding (they always make you struggle for it), it doesn't mean you suddenly like wearing a shock collar.

2

MrPotatoeHead wrote

I'm not an anarchist. But, they offer many worthwhile ideas that need to be considered in order to move society to a fair and equitable state, unlike it's current two tier system which favors the very rich over the rest of us.

2

robottroymacclure wrote

if your not an anarchist do you have a political affiliation or preference? what would that be?

1

MrPotatoeHead wrote (edited )

I have no affiliation with any party or belief system. I want our current system to change into one that takes care of people, and removes the power that billionaires and mega-corporations have over our lives. I believe people's rights need to be increased, not be taken away. With more automation occurring all the time, a minimum income should be provided, without being a welfare state. For example, Social Security should provide a minimum income to all people of retirement age, even if they or a spouse did not pay into the system for ten years, the current requirement. This would open up jobs for younger people that can't find them by removing the need for people around 70 years old to keep working to pay their bills and eat. Social Security could be expanded to cover everyone over 18. Health insurance is criminal in the US. Medicare for all would be a good way to cover people. The problem with this is the corrosive power of health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and giant health care providers that milk the system. There is much that needs to be done.

1

succtales_backup wrote

Bickering over minor ideological differences is fine by me, yet There's never a situation that calls for sectarianism.