Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Oh noes I'm sectarian against capitalists with Chinese characteristics :((

6

monday wrote

The same people Who are shittin on Raddle or you are the same tankies who spread disinfo here in the early chapo diaspora.

I dont care If they made revisions about realist socialist States, and are trying to build a real and inclusive marxist community, but dont come here try to defend Stalin or LeninMummy, or whatever dictator you get your hardon, you wont be accepted as anarchist..

7

ziq wrote

Yeah one of them was posing as an anarchist while saying they fully support China and North Korea's governments, and then accused me of being a "stupid teenaged CIA agent" when I talked back. Really pissed me off.

6

lempamo wrote

posing as an anarchist while saying they fully support China and North Korea's governments

lol that's counter to what anarchism is, rejection of ALL authority & hierarchy

5

Amorphous wrote

What? Anarchism is not necessarily opposed to "authority" whatever you might mean by that. An interesting read on the topic of authority from an anarchist perspective can be found here.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that never once have I said I fully support the governments of China and the DPRK (for the record, I'm the one ziq is talking about). I said I support the peoples of those countries in their resistance against imperialism, so far as to respect their ability to criticize and organize their own governments without random westerners' involvement. There is a very big difference between those statements.

I also recognize that, while those governments are far from ideal, they are still better than the US and so it would be bizarre to waste so much energy talking about them when the worse evil is also closer to home. It seems to me that the interest in tearing down these third world countries from a comfortable home in the west can only be fuelled by racism or pro-western propaganda.

−4

suma OP wrote

Anarchism is not necessarily opposed to "authority"

It's not nice to spread disinformation like this. Especially when the place is filled with anarchists and you're telling them anarchy doesn't mean what anarchy means.

7

Amorphous wrote

I'm an anarchist who just posted literature by prominent anarchist Mikhail Bakunin to support the point I made about anarchism. What the hell is wrong with you?

−2

suma OP wrote (edited )

I'm an anarchist (!!!!!!)

Sorry bud, you can say it as many times as you want, but it won't be true until you stop clinging to that boot.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Learn the difference between expertise and authority instead of quoting me bad translations of the century-old musings of a white man. You're not even quoting the context where he very clearly explained he was talking about expertise, not authority, or noting that he never published that very unfinished essay.

The very fact that you try to (mis)quote Bakunin to prove you're an anarchist makes you not an anarchist.

4

Amorphous wrote

So are the people hosting the text where Bakunin very clearly says anarchists do not reject all authority also not anarchists? Because they seem to agree with my assessment as well, according to the note they put on that text.

The idea that the anarchists are against authority is rejected by Bakunin.

Are you saying the people behind panarchy.org are not anarchists? Who is an anarchist according to your view? Why is it that any time someone contradicts you or ziq they are suddenly not anarchist? Is anarchism a hive mind? Are all anarchists in 100% agreement on all things?

Are you ziq's alt?

−2

suma OP wrote

Quit concern trolling, you're being blatantly obvious and the only people who are going to be swayed by your "anarchy means pro-authority" doublethink are other bootlickers like you.

Are you ziq's alt?

Are you a tankie posing as an anarchist to poison the well?

4

Amorphous wrote

"anarchy means pro-authority"

When the fuck did I say that? I said that anarchists do not "reject ALL authority." That's all. This is backed up by literal centuries of debate and writing among anarchists.

Are you a tankie posing as an anarchist to poison the well?

Nope. I'm here 100% in good faith. I've done nothing but speak truly according to my feelings and beliefs and experiences. All I ask of you is the same good faith discussion. Why are you so opposed to that?

−2

[deleted] wrote

−1

Amorphous wrote

Sealioning means trolling by following people around and harassing them with persistent bad-faith invitations to debate. Again, I'm here 100% in good faith, and I actually completely left the assholes here alone until this thread where I was specifically mentioned again. How is it sealioning to come and have a discussion when other people mention you?

0

ziq wrote

Leaving us alone doesn't = badmouthing us on a red fash reddit clone.

3

Amorphous wrote

lol you come to a forum full of people you fucking hate and will treat unfairly if they ever step anywhere near you and get upset that those people vent about their experiences with you

that is leaving you alone. dont like it, stay on your own site, dipshit

−1

ziq wrote

wah ziq is an anarchist and I'm an proarchist but like calling myself an anarchist even tho I love authority and ziq talked back to me when I was spreading my creepy doublespeak RADDLE IS CANCELLED

4

Amorphous wrote

its very hard not to call you a child when you act like this. that seems to make you very upset, so I'll ask you now -- how else can I describe this behavior? do you truly believe that this is how an adult acts?

I'm serious, I want your input.

−3

ziq wrote

wah you're so upset you're a baby wah

3

Amorphous wrote

Well, no. It's not because you're upset, though my first reaction is to ask why you're upset over some random person you (wrongly) believe is only here to troll.

It's because of the way you express those feelings. To be more accurate, you don't seem to be very good at expressing your emotions. Typically, this is something associated with children. You know, we tend to get our tantrums out and get better at communicating our feelings as we get older.

And honestly, I'm sorry if I have upset you. Silly internet drama sucks. I don't want to have any problems with you. But you've acted like a bully in many of our interactions and that manifests in me venting about you. If that's not how you want to be seen, and not how you want people to talk about you, I get that. Let's move forward and stop being assholes to each other. Yeah?

−1

ziq wrote

wah children throw tantrums wah you can't communicate because you're a child wah when you get older you'll learn to submit to my authority wah stop bullying me wah i would like to have a civil conversation about your comment i have been unfailingly polite and would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing a sealion has ever done to you wah you fucking immature child cia agent terrorist wah let's be friends now yeah? wah

4

monday wrote

Maybe they want you to be a mod on their redfash.chat, is a weird approach to an invitation like that but hey they have hope that you are going to accept one day...

2

ziq wrote

I'd rather eat battery acid out of a public toilet than join that cult.

1

Amorphous wrote

Hey, I tried. This is why people don't like you.

−2

ziq wrote

Count your downvotes and rethink that statement.

As unlikable as I am, you're pure cringe.

3

Amorphous wrote

hahahahahahahah

ziq this site has a userbase consisting of yourself and 10 of your alt accounts and no one else (including me, as we have established) of course ill be downvoted here

−3

lempamo wrote

from this point on there is only one good way to respond to you:

E

4

ziq wrote

You're downvoted because you're dripping with bootlicker syndrome and every anarchist is repulsed by it.

4

ziq wrote

I have a confession to make everyone. Amorphous is my alt. I thought it would be funny to do an anarcho-tankie character but it's starting to get old now. There's really nowhere else to take such a bland and uninteresting personality. It's just too predictable - the only step left is for them to announce they're a full on raging tankie now because anarkiddies were being mean and edgy and undialectical and refusing to read theory and the only solution is to send in the tanks to crush the ignorant peasants and declare dictatorship of the mighty mustache.

4

ziq wrote

Also, I've infiltrated the chapo.chat admin team, but you'll never guess which admin I am.

2

Amorphous wrote

I admit, this one is pretty funny. Good work.

0

ziq wrote

I fucking love talking to myself.

3

Amorphous wrote

Mostly the "dictatorship of the mighty mustache" part. I like that.

Seriously though, you guys can bully me as much as you want, it's not going to dissuade me from being an anarchist. I'm already well aware that there's a vast difference between the radlibs who call themselves anarchists on the internet and actual anarchists in the real world. By being a radlib you're not really surprising me, only disappointing me.

−4

CaptainACAB wrote

It's funny because you're doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of doing to you.

Have fun with your ML friends, ya fuckin' liberal.

5

Amorphous wrote

What do you mean?

−1

CaptainACAB wrote

You:

Why is it that any time someone contradicts you or ziq they are suddenly not anarchist? Is anarchism a hive mind? Are all anarchists in 100% agreement on all things?

Also You:

I'm already well aware that there's a vast difference between the radlibs who call themselves anarchists on the internet and actual anarchists in the real world. By being a radlib you're not really surprising me, only disappointing me.

"Everyone that doesn't conform to my specific worldview of what an anarchist is is obviously just a radlib."

And "Have fun with your ML friends" is just me telling you to have fun with your ML friends.

Me calling you a liberal is just me mocking your behavior, you liberal.

5

Amorphous wrote

You're not totally wrong, but I'd say the context is different. Nothing I have said contradicts anarchism in principle -- whereas these people eat up CIA propaganda which, to my mind, is completely incompatible with anarchism.

I understand they'd say the same thing about my defense of comrades who are not anarchist. What can ya do? I'm still doing my best to discuss in good faith.

−2

CaptainACAB wrote

Why? Raddle's dead, remember?

Nothing I have said contradicts anarchism in principle

What are the fundamental principals of anarchism to you?

Yes, this is a trick question; but you should answer it anyway.

4

Amorphous wrote

What are the fundamental principals of anarchism to you?

I guess to put it in the simplest terms, I'd say anarchism is about equality. It's about building a world where everyone has control over their own lives. Working with the CIA is fundamentally opposed to that goal ... for obvious reasons, I'd hope.

−1

CaptainACAB wrote

I'd say anarchism is about equality

Okay, so that's where the split begins. I'm gonna go with "no" on that one; if any political ideology has "equality", whatever that vague platitude is (Seriously, even the actual ideology of liberalism claims to champion it in some sense), as it's core prinicipal it would have to be Socialism. And Socialism isn't even synonymous with Anarchism.

Everyone on this "dead" website that has disagreed with you would say that Anarchism is about the abolition of power. Period. And that's not liberalism or whatever because the markets that liberals like have power, too; the "rights" need a central body of government to actually enforce them; and liberals are fine with the existence of power; and unlike Ancoms, they prefer representative democracy over direct democracy. Also, no one on here actually gives a shit about "Rule of law".

3

Amorphous wrote

Anarchism is about the abolition of power.

That's literally another way of phrasing exactly what I said. For people to truly be equal, it is necessary to avoid giving them systemic power over one another.

Why are you incapable of arguing in good faith?

1

CaptainACAB wrote

So, no one would be equal under libertarian socialism?

1

Amorphous wrote

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Typically I would see someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist" as a crypto-anarchist. That's how I've used the term before. It's generally seen as less scary than the term anarchist and therefore more approachable, and a more acceptable label to use in public.

So ... yes. Everyone would be equal under a libertarian socialist, an anarchist society. Ideally.

0

CaptainACAB wrote

Typically I would see someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist" as a crypto-anarchist.

They aren't Anarchists, though. They're primarily socialists with an aversion to authoritarianism; they aren't about abolishing the state, they just want minimize what it can do. Their ideal is a state that can provide welfare and other such services without all of the discrimination and tyranny; a "nice" state, in other words. They don't hate policing, but they do hate the way it's done now. In other words, people are equal but there's still a structure of power.

As opposed to Ancoms, who want to abolish the state and Capitalism.

As opposed to Anarchists, who want to abolish all forms of hierarchy.

1

Amorphous wrote

I don't agree with that analysis. What you're describing is a socdem.

And also, no wonder you guys keep saying I'm not an anarchist. You don't think anarcho-communists are anarchists. Wild.

0

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

You don't think anarcho-communists are anarchists.

Not really since I lump them in under "strains of anarchist thought". They're Anarchists in that regard. Much like Mutualists, Syndicalists, Anarchist collectivists, Egoists, Anarchists without Adjectives, and so on .

They're also Communists. They're literally the mixture of two ideologies.

Anarcho-Communists are Anarchists, but Anarchism isn't Anarcho-Communism.

3

ziq wrote

Ah shit I just got cum on my kb

−1

ziq wrote

Anarchism is not necessarily opposed to "authority" 

Omg you big liberal

third world countries 

Chinese and Russian billionaires have bought up all the real estate around here and hiked up the rents so locals can't afford to pay rent anywhere near the city. But keep going you fucking bootlicker.

7

Amorphous wrote

Omg you big liberal

Mikhail Bakunin was a liberal?

−4

ziq wrote

5

Amorphous wrote

So I'm a liberal for holding an opinion Mikhail Bakunin held, who was not a liberal. Got it.

Why do you even talk? Will you ever say anything of value? The world may never know.

−4

ziq wrote

that wasn't his opinion, stop misrepresenting actual anarchists you giant fucking clown

5

Amorphous wrote

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought.

Seems to me that Bakunin is quite clear and deliberate in his refutation of the idea that anarchists "reject ALL authority" as the person I replied to suggested.

−4

ziq wrote

Bakunin is crystal clear alright. He rejects all authority. What he doesn't reject is the expertise of specialists. That isn't authority. Someone being trained at a specific task is not a structural power unless you make it one. I wrote that essay so I wouldn't have to repeatedly spoonfeed you baby anarchists this incredibly basic shit.

Why are you still here anyway? You have your own little dengist circlejerk now where you can praise Xi and Kim to your heart's content. Every minute you spend making a mockery of anarchy here is a minute you could be spending polishing your cryptofash master's boot. Those boots aren't going to moisten themselves, so get to it already. You've got a ton of work ahead of you if you're gonna convince all those basic ass anlibs on chapo to cast away their anarchy in favor of third positionism.

7

Amorphous wrote

He rejects all authority. What he doesn't reject is the expertise of specialists.

Okay. Who are you to decide that? Why do you just get to tell me what words mean? Why is it that when Bakunin says "What is authority?" (or in the original French, "Qu'est-ce que l'autorité?") you get to decide he doesn't actually mean authority? Why do you get to decide that the word "autorité" as Bakunin used it does not translate to authority in English?

Sorry, but you're wrong. When Bakunin wrote, "S'ensuit-il que je repousse toute autorité? Loin de moi cette pensée." this was not poorly translated into English to mean something it did not originally say. What Bakunin said was that he does not reject authority. That is very clear in both French and English.

We can argue all day about different kinds of authority and what that might mean fully in context. But the point is that this is an argument held between anarchists for as long as anarchism has existed. To say that "anarchists reject ALL authority" is just outright wrong. There are so many different ways of viewing the concept of authority under an anarchist lens, and the only reason I'm a "fake" anarchist in your eyes is because I don't bow down before you and tell you every single interpretation you make is right.

−2

suma OP wrote (edited )

Are you this person's alt? Because you're both equally bad at concern trolling. Bakunin explained exactly what he meant in the rest of the text that you're conveniently choosing to ignore so you can keep your troll going. Not that anyone here gives a flying fuck what that bigot thought or what any anarcho-collectivist thinks with their spiteful "you have to work to eat" rhetoric.

Anarchy literally means against archy. If you're going to use words to describe your politics, learn what they mean.

7

Amorphous wrote

Are you this person's alt?

Nope. Aren't you an admin or something? You should have access to the kind of information which can help you confirm that.

Bakunin explained exactly what he meant in the rest of the text that you're conveniently choosing to ignore so you can keep your troll going.

Sure, but he called that authority. And that's what I mean. We can argue all day about what "authority" is and what it means, but at the end of the day, that still means that there are interpretations of the term "authority" which many anarchists do not reject. It is shortsighted, over-simplifying, and nothing short of wrong to say that anarchists necessarily "reject ALL authority."

To talk about a different kind of authority many anarchists do not reject, think about the idea of a revolution. Violence is a very raw exercise in authority. I don't know your stance on the idea of violent revolution, but you cannot tell me that all revolutionary anarchists are fake anarchists too.

Not that anyone here gives a flying fuck what that bigot thought

That's a fair point. I agree that he sucked and also that we shouldn't necessarily take his word as golden. But he was an anarchist, and an influential part of anarchist theory even into the modern day. My point was that you cannot say "anarchists reject x" and also acknowledge Bakunin as an anarchist if he very explicitly said, "I do not reject x." I was trying to get a feel for how honestly you guys were arguing, or whether it was in good faith. (The answer was no, clearly)

what any anarcho-collectivist thinks with their spiteful "you have to work to eat" rhetoric.

And about this I completely agree as well. I don't agree at all with the idea that needs should be withheld from people in order to make them work. As far as the old communist saying goes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," I take both those parts to be separate and only the latter absolute. Everyone should have their needs taken care of to the best of the ability of the community, and those who are able should work to help out their comrades too, but I think that there will be few enough people who "cheat" the system (for lack of a better way to phrase it) that it won't be necessary at all to try to enforce this.

−2

[deleted] wrote

4

Amorphous wrote

Am I wrong?

−2

[deleted] wrote

2

Amorphous wrote

Stop linking me walls of text and explain your view ffs. If the statement I made is wrong, explain how. What is authority? It feels to me like authority is a buzzword you use to just always be right. If you're not right, then authority doesn't mean that. I'm tired of it, so just tell me your definition of that word.

−3

[deleted] wrote

4

Amorphous wrote

You're linking me some fucking responses to a text I have no interest in instead of actually replying to what I'm saying.

−3

ziq wrote

Lmao so you can link to bakunin's wall of text (apparently without even reading past the headline) but when someone links you to text you bite their head off for it? How can you stand yourself?

4

Amorphous wrote

(apparently without even reading past the headline)

I quoted text from like 14 paragraphs in you clown lmao

−4

suma OP wrote

Either your reading comprehension is severely lacking or you're a concern troll. Which is it?

4

Amorphous wrote

I mean I've made my point. What Bakunin was saying seems very clear to me. What is wrong with my interpretation?

−2

ziq wrote

can we please stop taking this concern troll's bait

4

monday wrote

lumpen bohemians

Thanks for that, I've been called worst

5

shellac wrote

the tankie vs anarchist crap is getting really fucking old

if you think they’re bad wait until you hear about the republican party

4

ziq wrote (edited )

those particular conservatives don't pretend to be radicals so we're not forced to engage with them

2