Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

a_zed_9 wrote

I disagree with this analysis, and have already stated why, if you would like to elaborate on how you think this methodology can be effective, or respond to my criticism that using such means only reproduces capital feel free but otherwise this is to me only a restatement of your point without elaborating.

1

ziq wrote

I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.

You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.

Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?

1

a_zed_9 wrote

I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.

I am not a communist, as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.

You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.

I completely agree and apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism, though I do believe that capital relates to civilization as a whole not just capitalism, but I do recognize the term is often used for capitalism. I believe that ones critique must go much further but I think to expand in detail would be beyond the scope of this convo since it seems focused on wealth and property.

Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?

My analysis is not about getting indigenous people to "accept either my terms", I am indifferent to if indigenous people, or anyone else agrees with my analysis. My analysis is for myself, I share it in hopes that others may find it useful, or if not, may offer a critique that is useful to me. I accept the agency if indigenous people, they will do what they will do, and I will do what I will do. What I am concerned with is combating the systems that may limit that "autonomy" and how best, in my own analysis, to combat them. As to the question "who gives a shot if you aprove?" You should not care for my approval, you should see if there is anything I have said that is useful, and if not discard it, and if you feel so compelled, to offer where you disagree.

1

ziq wrote

I am not a communist

I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer to denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief, while fully participating in capitalism every day of your life. You've even tried to institutionalize lifestylism into an ideology by writing an 'anarcho-lifestylist' manifesto, and you want to talk about the benefits of child rape as ideology. You live and breathe communism. You are the full manifestation of a leftist ideologue.

as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.

Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis'. The opinions you're spouting are not analysis, they're pure ideology. You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.

I apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism

Please don't think you need to apologize to me. I don't know you, don't care to know you and am not affected emotionally by anything you say. But I will continue to point out the absolute absurdity of your words as you continue to unleash them on the world.

2

a_zed_9 wrote

I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer

I don't see how my opposition to capital and property is ideological. We haven't even discussed why I am opposed to it. To elaborate, I oppose both since they are systems/institutions and as such deny my autonomy and the autonomy of all things. Is this what you mean by ideological? Or could you elaborate if not?

denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief,

I haven't denounced anyone, unless you take all disagreement as denouncement. hile fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

While fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

I agree most people, and definitely no one you will find here is fully free from capitalism, civilization settler colonialism etc. My point though is that there are extents by which people participate, and there are different institutions which comprise these things as a whole. So I think opposing capital, and opposing wealth and opposing property are things that are effective in escaping these systems. Amd so they are methods I employ and "advocate" or share.

Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis

I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility for what you say". I said it, it is plain for all to see, what beyond that do you take as "taking responsibility"? I am simply saying you don't have to, and in fact I will state I think you should not, blindly accept what I say, just as I don't blindly accept what you say, and that is what I mean by beholdent.

Please don't think you need to apologize to me.

Okay.

You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.

Slinging words like "faux post-left" "colonialist" "comunist" doesn't really mean anything to me. You could just replace it with bad. It would make more sense to me if you expanded on what has led you to think this. What makes me a colonialist? Is it because I disagree with you? Because that is the only reasoning I currently see.

1

Garbear104 wrote

nsisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency

I think it just makes them an actual anarchist who doesn't sell out their ideas when someone tries to guilt trip them. A state us a state even if its ran by a differnet group of people, and I dont support any state.

If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve? Them and you care. Without help you get nothing. So it's best to not try and piss off everyone who could help. Anarchists want anarchism. Not an indigenous council. You may at the wrong place if you want otherwise.

0

ziq wrote

TIL an actual anarchist is someone who forces a program on others before they'll give them their oh-so-important approval.

You're not an 'actual anarchist' for forcing your ideology on people you've colonized. Fuck your anarcho-settler ideology. Fuck anyone who thinks they can impose their way of life or their ideology on others.

Them and you care. Without help you get nothing. So it's best to not try and piss off everyone who could help.

Settlers will never lift a fucking finger for colonized people. I think we've demonstrated that with the constant flood of anarcho-settler bullshit this week.

Also, learn to use quotes: >

Because I wouldn't want anyone to think my words are coming out of your mouth.

2

Garbear104 wrote

I dont need approval to stop a pig from hurting someone nor do I to oppose our state so why do I need it to oppose theirs? Stay consistent comrade. Flipping away all your ideas the moment you see a idffermet colored person doesn't make ya look good. It isnt complicated im not gonna help form a state. I dont care if its yours or theirs or anyone else's. Anarchists strive for anarchy. Not some dipshit transisitionary period. Your using the same weak cop outs leninists use.

1

ziq wrote

I hope the big scary indigenous state you've built in your fragile little settler mind comes alive and swallows you up.

if this is who I think it is, and let's face it, only you could be this frightened of reparations, I look forward to you rage deleting your account again the next time I call out your shit. Settler trash.

1

Garbear104 wrote

Bro I've got know clue who the fuck you think i am but ill say you seem to have some wierd delusions of self importance. Call me settler trash all you want you authoritarian scumfuck, it won't change a thing.

−1

ziq wrote

Settler trash

0

Garbear104 wrote

Quite witty. Youve beaten me this time o great authoritarian one. Please do not step on my with your peoples boot. Your a fucking clown

0

ziq wrote

Settler trash

0

Garbear104 wrote

I think its funny that you have to ignore how your using the same transitionary state garbage that leninists use. Could you reply to that instead of continuing flop about?

0

ziq wrote

Settler trash

0

Garbear104 wrote

I see. Well its good to know that a fellow "anarchist" can't even explain the differences between their defence of authority and that of a leninist.

0

[deleted] wrote

1

ziq wrote

Can we not entertain their shitty strawman? No one said anything about transitionary states. Anarcho-settlers don't get to dictate how indigenous people use their land if it's returned to them.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

ziq wrote

Settlers aren't real anarchists, they're perpetual colonizers.

1

Garbear104 wrote

Its working about as good as trying to get people on board with your leninist style transition state. Like honestly. What the fuck was the point in your comment? Give up cuz its hard and not happening overnight? Nah, ill pass on that like ill pass on the ethno state

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Garbear104 wrote

itd wierd you were competent enough to type out multiple paragraphs of insults to try and make yourself feel better but you can't fathom how yall are using tankie talking points to defend your anarcho police and state. Fucking clown

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Garbear104 wrote

interesting. Would you like to respond to how you are using the same arguments leninists and ccp shills use or will you dodge it again like every other tankie clown has done thus far?

0