Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote

It's an ethnosociality, not an ethnostate, if it's not a statist project

6

ziq wrote

If it is a statist project, that's the individual group's business. Settlers with the most powerful states in the world don't get to judge the people they've colonized when they take money or land from the state that genocided them.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

I don't think it's about judging in a malicious way, but about deciding what to support. I wouldn't want settlers from outside a particular context, to be blindly supporting a postcolonial state. I encourage settlers to understand and inform themselves about projects they become aware of, from an anarchist perspective. Because I am anarchist

5

aaaaargZombies wrote

If it is a statist project, that's the individual group's business.

Very surprised to read this position on an anarchist site coming from someone who's put so much time into promoting anarchist thought.

5

ziq wrote

I'm not a colonizer.

3

Garbear104 wrote

Just a statist pig. Just as shit.

−3

ziq wrote (edited )

TIL taking my land back from a state that stole it makes me a statist

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

the only way to take land back, is to abolish private (and "public") property and the notion of land ownership. these were clearly mechanisms of state control and colonization in many places. and they still allow for development and destruction.

So yes i agree. but here is my reply, perhaps this will lead in a good direction:

  • how is the land being taken back? Is it being squatted, or are you changing the title with the government?

  • by who is the land being taken back?

  • how is the land kept? That is, how do you protect it?

I think these are crucial questions for decolonizers.

2

Garbear104 wrote

Its really wild how many tankes are in here simping for their preferred state. We can criticze the ccp and thats not colonizer or racist but the indigneous council state? Now that's to much

−3

ziq wrote

no one in here has supported any kind of state, settler trash

taking your land back from the state doesn't make you a state

3

Garbear104 wrote

Taking land back then using authority to determine who gets exclusive stewardship rights makes it a state dumbass

−3

ziq wrote

anarchists don't oppose personal property. the land you live on is not private property, it's personal property. denying indigenous people access to our land while every settler in the world is living on stolen land tells me everything I need to know about you

6

Kinshavo wrote

It is surprising that you are getting attacked for recognizing that Anarchism ™ is not universal, much less the kind of Anarchism you promote is not a colonizing force.

Maybe Yankees are playing cowboys & indians in their heads, assuming that Colonialism only refers to the massacre that was American colonization. Or maybe they carefully choose to ignore the whole planet, and any other place where native people were slaughtered in the name of some long forgotten cause.

I am glad that I missed this week on raddle

3

ziq wrote

They hear 'reparations' and 'land return' and immediately panic because they see it as a threat to their settler authority (white supremacy). It's really creeping me out.

4

dedcopcrw wrote (edited )

I created an account just to commemorate the time that the mighty ziq became another state and cop apologizing liberal.

MORE👏BLACK👏COPS👏

−1

ziq wrote

Settler trash.

2

dedcopcrw wrote (edited )

Buddy you are literally adopting the talking points of every tankie who says you can't question the actions of the DPRK.

Israel is a statist project started by an oppressed minority who was given their land back. Based on your take here, you aren't allowed to question anything they do.

You have no real politics. You're just a shallow mess of angry hot takes and swears.

1

ziq wrote

My politics are pretty fucking simple. Colonizers who profit from the spoils of their settler state and its genocide every day of their lives don't get to then tell indigenous people they can't take their land back from the state because it's 'a statist project'. My grandfather's land and house has been occupied by lowlife settlers like you for decades, and if by some miracle the state who took it returned it to us, I would fucking take it. Fuck you and your ideology.

4

dedcopcrw wrote

Are you calling the act of the government giving the people the land the "statist project"? Because everyone else is talking about the people receiving the land setting up a tangible state with boarders and cops as the "statist project".

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

0

ziq wrote

Because everyone else is talking about the people receiving the land setting up a tangible state

Bullshit.

Even without state involvement im not interested in helping any group gain any sort of wealth or land, since I'm opposed to both. I have only ever heard of reparations discussed in these terms, getting wealth and land either from the state or from "settlers", so that is why I stated im opposed to it

...

I don't have "affinity" with anyone. I also don't believe one should return stolen property, as the idea of theft (stolen) reproduces both morality (criminality) and property (ownership).

...

I don't see how giving extremely poor indigenous people infertile deforrested farmland 1000s of miles from their family will help. [...] I'd be a little annoyed if I had to give the little money I have saved to buy food (to indigenous people)

Settler trash.

3

dedcopcrw wrote

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

0

ziq wrote

why the fuck would i be settler

1

dedcopcrw wrote

I'm sorry your critique of cops and borders is so shallow that you think they're ok when non-white folks use them.

Have fun being a crypto-tank.

−1

ziq wrote

asks me if i support cops and government, i say why the fuck would i, see this as proof that i support cops and government

are you settlers even able to process words at this point or is your rage over the idea of losing any piece of your blood-soaked empire so overwhelming that all you can see is scary indigenous people bulldozing your condos?

5

Garbear104 wrote

Isn't it fun to know that that clown has a group of eager followers who eat up this shit?

−2

Garbear104 wrote

it was a yes or no question. Answer yes or no. Stop trying to dodge it you auth trash

−2

ziq wrote

damn i wish i could fuck you up

1

Garbear104 wrote

Yes your politics are simple. State good if its ran by the right color. Your a clown and should truthfully no longer ve taken seriously.

−3

ziq wrote

don't worry, no one takes non settlers seriously. you've all made sure of that

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

I wish I could rob those settlers in comments here at a gunpoint and was like "It's mine now, returning it to you would reproduce ideas of commodification and moralism". Seems to me those fuckers never had anything taken away from them. Understanding the generational feeling of loss and severed connections is the most important thing in understanding colonization/decolonization.

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

On the other hand, I have to admit that concept of reparations isn't the most obvious and I see how it can be confusing in some parts. Some aspects of it have to be questioned. Especially if we are talking about such important things as land.

Maybe, it's really counterproductive to discuss it in terms of state-sanctioned actions. Maybe, it's more important to understand the current marginalized state of indigenous people and it relation to colonialism and your personal responsibilities. And, as /u/Tequila_Wolf stated, engage in grass-root initiatives. Keeping in mind that, ideally, yeah, it would be fair if once stolen land returns to rightful owners. This way you remove someone else deciding who exactly rightful owners is, and can find answers yourself by engaging local communities.

Discussing what form indigenous societies will take after all the stolen land returned to them is as counterproductive as discussing what color doors will be painted under anarchy.

5

ziq wrote

where I'm from an invading state took our land and shipped in settlers to live on it, so the state we live under gave our parents and grandparents what was supposed to be temporary refugee housing. if you follow these american settlers logic, that makes refugees statists for accepting help from a state. the invading state has also started giving money to some of the refugees in exchange for their stolen land (reparations), and even though I wouldn't take it myself, that doesn't mean those who do are cop apologists or whatever the fuck they're claiming.

3

a_zed_9 wrote

I've never heard the ethno-state argument. But the reason I oppose reparations, and often hear from others, is that it is mediated through the state and capital. As any reparations in terms of land or wealth upholds commodification. As well reparations is often seen, and I agree, as reformist.

−2

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

This is like saying you oppose anticapitalism because you don't like Marx's work.

There are plenty other ways to do it, Marxism shouldn't represent the whole, especially given it is a false solution, easily coopted, and an experienced failure.

The most simple way for anarchists to do reparations is to seriously organise resources to cross directly from settlers to indigenous people or other relevant racialised people they are in affinity with, on the terms of those people. There need be no states involved nor capitalist relations. The basic principles are not complicated, same as most things anarchic.

7

a_zed_9 wrote

Even without state involvement im not interested in helping any group gain any sort of wealth or land, since I'm opposed to both. I have only ever heard of reparations discussed in these terms, getting wealth and land either from the state or from "settlers", so that is why I stated im opposed to it, if there are other meanings of the word I would have to evaluate that on its own terms, im just unaware.

I would say even without state involvement I would still see this form of reparations as reformist since it is focused on goals which align with civilized values in my analysis, primarily reinforcing ideas of wealth and property. As well I think this means of achieving this end is less effective then petitioning the state, since it relies almost exclusively on whote guilt. As well I don't think white guilt is something that can be used for "radical" ends, at least in my experience and understanding it almost exclusively leads itself to "charity" or more liberal/reformist strategies. This has been written about a bit often with the language "allys vs accomplices" though I find even many of these texts are still quite limited in their analysis.

−2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

You are coming off as super disingenuous. When people rent space to run infoshops, I assume you don't go out of your way to express how they are reinforcing property relations and are actually reformist?

Regardless, there are ways to do reparations and infoshops without any property relations, through direct expropriation, occupation, and sharing. You are limiting your perception of reparations to this limited way.

Do you think that mutual aid proper is reformist? Anarchist reparations are just a form of mutuality.

I have only ever heard of reparations discussed in these terms, getting wealth and land either from the state or from "settlers", so that is why I stated im opposed to it, if there are other meanings of the word I would have to evaluate that on its own terms, im just unaware.

That's what I'm saying exists.

I would still see this form of reparations as reformist since it is focused on goals which align with civilized values

Why, if as I said the resources were going to people you are in affinity with? If you have two properties, and return a stolen one to people you are in affinity with, how much more property relations are involved?

7

a_zed_9 wrote

When people rent space to run infoshops, I assume you don't go out of your way to express how they are reinforcing property relations and are actually reformist?

I do hold this opinion.

Do you think that mutual aid proper is reformist? Anarchist reparations are just a form of mutuality.

I am opposed to most mutual aid. The "mutual aid" I do advocate for is purely in the sharing of skills through ones lifestyle.

Why, if as I said the resources were going to people you are in affinity with? If you have two properties, and return a stolen one to people you are in affinity with, how much more property relations are involved?

I don't have "affinity" with anyone. I also don't believe one should return stolen property, as the idea of theft (stolen) reproduces both morality (criminality) and property (ownership).

That's what I'm saying exists.

Do you have any texts you recommend on these forms of reparations outside of the critiques I've put forth?

Regardless, there are ways to do reparations and infoshops without any property relations, through direct expropriation, occupation, and sharing. You are limiting your perception of reparations to this limited way.

To be honest I have not considered sharing or expropriation to be reparations. I still have the same issue with the reproduction of these institutional values (property, wealth) from these tactics but I agree these tactics do not appeal to "the system at large" nor directly reproduce it.

You are coming off as super disingenuous.

If you can elaborate on what you mean I can try my best to avoid the behavior you dislike if it is within my ability, but it is not my intention to come off as such, simply to contribute to the discussion with my own analysis and criticism.

−1

Vulgar_Soda wrote (edited )

I do hold this opinion

If I am understanding your position correctly, you're advocating for ideological purity over concrete action that would help elevate oppressed groups of people? You seem to be refusing to entertain the idea of reparations, renting space for an info shop, or whatever else you say promotes "capitalism" and "property" in favor of advancing an idealized form of anarchy that does ... what exactly?

5

ziq wrote

what exactly?

White supremacy.

4

a_zed_9 wrote (edited )

I believe my actions remove me from these institutions i hope to escape. So for example, instead of participating in this tactic you advocate, I am homeless and jobless to escape these institutions.

Edit: I should also add i do not think one should be "ideologically pure before acting. I am just stating that I do not think that your tactic, reparations, can achieve your end, ending settler colonialism. I think this because with these institutions of property, wealth and capital, non-humans and possibly different groups of humans would still be exploited and forced out of their ecosystems.

I personally would never participate in the tactic of an infoshop or renting a space or reparations since I don't think it can achieve any of my goals. That is all I mean to imply with my statements. I think everyone should build their own analysis of what their goals are and how to achieve them. If you think reparations is a goal/tactic you want to achieve I'm not trying to change that just to also state my stance.

In terms of "opposing concrete action that would help elevate oppressed people" I would say for the most part you are right. I think many groups get caught up in reformist measures to make life tolerable that they then become recuperate with the systems that dominated them in the first place. So in a way I am opposed to short term concrete measures to improve marginalized peoples lives (including my own) since this would only be improvement in terms of civilized values and does not address the systems that negate our autonomy.

−1

Vulgar_Soda wrote

While I sympathize with your, admittedly misguided, commitment to only the most Perfect Anarchy™, dropping out ironically has the effect of creating more of the same than the reforms you oppose. You oppose capitalism, and yet you live off its excretions. Living on the edge of society does nothing to destroy that society, or even escape it.

By opposing any measure of relief, you in effect endorse the status quo and all the horrors that come along with capitalism, property and the state. Not very anarchist of you. and I would agree with the site admin, very white supremacist of you to reject anything that would help out the poor brown people because it would infringe on your brand of anarchy.

Good luck living in a tent on that pedestal you've built for yourself.

4

a_zed_9 wrote

I don't think that dropping out reproduces these systems but if you want to elaborate on how they do feel free to.

I honestly feel the opposite, in that these reliefs sustain the "status quo" through recuperation and channeling our desires through these civilized values.

To be honest I'm unsure why you use language like "living on that pedestal" or "perfect anarchy". I know my analysis is not perfect, I have already stated this in my discussion about why I share my thoughts in hopes of critiques that can help me build a better analysis. I do not think my analysis is perfect but it is what I have, just as your analysis is what you have, and so I want to take actions that align with thoughts, and both change over time. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think you are "lesser" or that you should just accept what I say. My only goal here is to just share my own thoughts and to likewise hear your thoughts. If there is something in my phrasing or anything like that, that has given you this impression of "superiority" or whatever for these comments I would appreciate if you shared.

I would also state as I commented with Ziq, blanket statement ls like "white supremacist" or "not anarchist" don't really mean anything to me besides "bad". If you could elaborate why you disagree or how it is these things then I could make sense of it, but obviously you are not obligated.

With regard to the "poor brown people" all I will say, as I believe I have stated this elsewhere in the thread, is I don't view white guilt as an effective tactic. White people feeling bad for me, or for other non-white people, cannot help me attain any of my goals (or attain my autonomy) in my analysis. If you would like me to elaborate I can.

0

Vulgar_Soda wrote

If you would like me to elaborate I can.

Nah, I'm good. and I don't feel like going further myself.

5

ziq wrote

Since the state is in control of the settler civilization, and the state stole the land, enslaved the people and orchestrated the genocide, who else is going to give the stolen land / wealth back? Are colonized people just supposed to wait until settlers decide to collectively abolish their state so they can mediate directly with 250000000 settlers? Something that will never, ever happen, because settlers depend on their state to uphold white supremacy and ensure colonized people remain firmly under the boots of settlers.

4

a_zed_9 wrote

I agree only the state can give land or wealth, since it is through the state that property and wealth are created. However personally I have no interest in acquiring land or wealth as part of a political project, I want to abolish property and wealth, not attempt to aquire it.

I do think part of this opposition to property and wealth includes opposition to "settlers" and participation in settler colonialism (as well as all other institutions) but I think focusing a political project on the acquisition of land and or wealth ultimately fails to adequately critique and "exit" these institutions.

What I advocate for, instead of this acquisition of wealth/land is for individuals to attempt to exit these institutions. I wrote about this in my essay on Anarcho-Lifestylism. Where instead of pushing for reformist measures which would benefit people in "civilized terms" individuals should instead work on building lifestyles outside of these civilized institutions and ideology. I believe this is necessary in order to truly escape the ideology and instution of property and capital which is a focus of many analysis, but also applies to other concepts, one I expand upon in the text is leaving the workplace to escape the instution of labor and the ideology of work and productivity.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

The only way indigenous people within settler states can have back their autonomy and thus potentially anarchy (if they want it) is if the settler state cedes control of land and resources to them so they don't need to depend on the state and its 'reservations' for survival. The state needs to return land fully, which is to say, agree to respect their sovereignty whether they establish nations or autonomous zones or whatever each group desires. Only by being released from the settler state's rule can indigenous people be free to determine their own outcomes. This requires land and, at least initially, capital.

4

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.

0

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?

2

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.

0

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.

3

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.

0

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.

−1

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.

3

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.

0

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.

2

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.

0

ziq wrote

Settler trash

1

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

−1

ziq wrote

Settler trash

1

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?

−1

ziq wrote

Settler trash

1

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.

−1

Vulgar_Soda wrote

Anarchists strive for anarchy. Not some dipshit transisitionary period.

and how's that working out for you? I'm waiting on The Anarchist Revolution like I'm waiting on Jesus to drop from the sky.

2

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.

3

Vulgar_Soda wrote

Can we not entertain their shitty strawman

wait a sec ...!!! Isn't this you dictating to me? I seem to recall your aversion to being told what's what in terms of message board enjoyment. Dammit, ziq.

1

Vulgar_Soda wrote (edited )

Can we not entertain their shitty strawman?

lol. I was having a bit of fun while stuck at work. Pretty sure this thread is over. This is why I don't adhere to labels. If this lovely assortment of settler apologists is what real anarchists look like, I don't want anything to do with anarchy.

1

ziq wrote

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

2

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

−1

Vulgar_Soda wrote

blah blah buzzwords blah blah bad faith assumptions blah blah

What the fuck is the point of your life? Do us all a favor, take the greasy fingers that typed your useless post and shove them so far up your ass, you eventually reach whatever peanut you have jiggling around in your cranium. Touch it. Poke your brain. Feel the sexy, smooth contours of your pathetic lump, and then take a squeeze. What you think passes for cognizant thought is actually your inability to process reality. You are a malfunction given form; the bare minimum electrical impulses needed to create a keyboard warrior so deluded, they think their opinions have value. You are worthless. A literal nothing. Your mom doesn't love you. Your dad wishes he could take back the jizz it took to make a life so utterly devoid of meaning, it makes your boring, regurgitated ideas seem worthwhile. Squeeze that tiny chode you call your brain so hard, you end it, and never post again.

2

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

−1

Vulgar_Soda wrote

to try and make yourself feel better

No need to try. I never felt bad reading your comedy. Thanks for the laughs. Also, clowns are fucking awesome.

2

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?

−1

temtemy wrote

But the reason I oppose reparations, and often hear from others, is that it is mediated through the state and capital. As any reparations in terms of land or wealth upholds commodification. As well reparations is often seen, and I agree, as reformist.

This is a dogmatic view of things. The reason why armed struggle exists is because the state won't give back the things they stole from other people without giving a fight. If the state, somehow, becomes generous and gives back the land without any bloodshed, why should we turn it down?

Tactics needs to be diversified. Armed struggle and peaceful, legal struggle should go hand-in-hand, not alone. Otherwise, the struggle would surely go down in defeat.

3

a_zed_9 wrote

It's not the tactic I'm opposed to, I don't care if they get the land from the state for free or take it by force. I'm opposed to the existence of property so I could never support either since this goal reproduces property and ownership.

4

Garbear104 wrote

careful. You might get a temp ban for being a racist settler. Not supporting indigenous states is anti anarchist

0

a_zed_9 wrote

Im not one to shy away from antagonist in a comment. Meaning I want to challenge ideas I disagree with. Bit I see no point in this petty antagonist here. The point you are trying to make is already abundantly clear, I think already stated it twice. It'd be more useful to contribute something to the conversation then to egg on another ban.

3

Garbear104 wrote

Your right. I apologize for using your comment as a way to vent frustrations.

2

a_zed_9 wrote

It's alright. I appreciate the apology.

2

Garbear104 wrote

Thank you for being understanding and to the point. Im gonna try to work on my ability to make sure my words always have some purpose behind em and not just say shit to start shit.

3

a_zed_9 wrote

Well there's definitely a time and place to talk shit. I just don't think talking shit to an admin on their own board is the brightest plan.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reparations suck tbh

−3

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

This and your following responses are a half-assed position reflecting a general lack of engagement with the range of possibilities for reparation at best, which belies a lack of engagement with important antiracist and anticolonial ideas from an anarchist perspective.

If you weren't an established user I would go straight to a global ban, instead I'll go with three days and a one time warning to keep this garbage to yourself while you get better ideas.

6

CircleA OP wrote

for you maybe

4

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

I don't see how giving extremely poor indigenous people infertile deforrested farmland 1000s of miles from their family will help.

Or should we give them 15k as a bribe for being actively genocides to this day. Indigenous people really need some liberal white saviors to save them with charity.

1

CircleA OP wrote

Who said anything about infertile deforested farmland? Give them their own land back. all the state-owned land at the very least, plus land being held by speculators / developers / landlords.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

Give the tobacco and gambling tycoon poc apartment buildings so they can be landlords. Great idea!!!

Don't even get me started in the white supremacy inherent to taking a large amount of extremely diverse ethic groups who even in a single ethic group have extremely different roles, wants and desires and otherizing them as the hegemonic indigenous people.

0

CircleA OP wrote

Are you a white settler?

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Me being a white settler doesn't absolve u of being racist lel

0

CircleA OP wrote (edited )

calls indigenous people 'tabacco and gambling tycoons' and insinuates they want to exploit the poor innocent white settlers who took their land at gunpoint and calls me racist

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

Some indigenous people are tobacco and gambling tycoon. Not all or even most. Just a select few.

0

CircleA OP wrote

Imagine saying settlers can't give back land to their victims because 1. the victims are 'extremely poor indigenous people' who won't know what to do with it and 2. the victims are 'tobacco and gambling tycoons' who will exploit the settlers by becoming their landlords.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

I never said they wouldn't know what to do with it. If u have no money it will be extremely useless to give people land far away from all their social support networks leave their home to go live in land that they don't have the resources to make useful. Land still extremely far away from essentials such as sources of income, grocery stores and hospitals.

This is assuming the hegemonic indigenous people want to leave everyone dependent on them to go be a homesteader.

1

CircleA OP wrote

If u have no money it will be extremely useless to give people land

Yeah land is so useless to people who have none because it's been stolen from them as part of an ongoing genocide.

settlers gonna settler

4

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Useless bc the reasons I stated above and that most of the value has been extracted out of it.

The ol classic take over land by force extract all the resources then give the really fucked up now terrible land back to the native population. If ur using a tactic taken from the British Empire to cure ur white guilt then maybe it's not that great of an idea maybe..

0

CircleA OP wrote

I'm not a settler, the opposite in fact. You, on the other hand are suffering from an acute case of highly contagious settleritis.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

I don't see how. I have no stake in the game of land back and reparations since I have very little money and own no property.

I just think indigenous people face very unique problems with require individual solutions catered to what they want. I'm very critical of people labeling a ethic group and claiming they all what the same thing based on their race rather than actually communicating with the individual what they want.

Edit:

Ig I'd be a little annoyed if I had to give the little money I have saved to buy food if I become unemployed or buy food for my parents in case of them becoming unable to work. But other than that idc on a personal level about about reparations.

Tho I don't think that's really what people are suggesting tho.

0