(apparently without even reading past the headline)

I quoted text from like 14 paragraphs in you clown lmao

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Am I wrong?

What do you mean?

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.

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

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.

"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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

Omg you big liberal

Mikhail Bakunin was a liberal?

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.

And I don't understand why you're being so hostile lol I'm not being obtuse. I just don't understand what you want from me.

Private publications, sure, but they'll of course be subject to scrutiny. I'm not gonna believe anything I read from anyone associated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation obviously, or any open neo-nazis. Again, I feel all of that should be obvious.

I mean I think it should be obvious that anything directly owned or funded by the government of the US, UK, Germany, etc is unreliable. Other than that I don't really care.