CaptainACAB

CaptainACAB wrote

The Marxists are touchy because they are arrogant. They lose their tempers easily when faced with anti-authoritarian criticism: they prefer to be adulated and flattered as champions of revolutionary ideas and absolute theoretical coherence.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by moonlune in Friday Free Talk: the 13th by Kinshavo

Whole patties melted into each other to form some hideous, not-so-easily-evenly-heated beast. They were circular, but after melting and freezing again, they were folded into one another. I get 30 minutes for lunch and there wasn't a lot I could both prep and eat in a reasonable time frame.

Still ended up using around 20 minutes, but at least I didn't have to work hungry for an additional 5 hours.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Dodging your challenges on personal level, let’s go straight to the point.

"Dodging" is an apt term for what you're doing.

The fact that they aren’t around today, does it mean that they cannot come again? Really?

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it can, with all of the problems of the here and now; I'm not really willing to base my worldview on what "could" happen, especially when there are practical, reality-based factors that you're willfully ignoring, such as "how exactly do we get from the here to anarchotopia?"; you know, the action-based part that we actually care about.

Believing as in viewing not as in religiously anticipating (really??)

I've yet to see you prove your beliefs; which would be exceedingly easy to do if they had basis in reality.

I cannot see where we are disagreeing, I am merely pointing that we do not need to believe that we once fell from grace, nor we need any facts from science, like the essay in question used,, to promote the idea (anarchism) that favours our selves as individuals and as class subjects.

Anarchists don't because they're already anarchist; anarchists also don't make up a majority of any group. If your goal as an anarchocommunist is to bring about anarchocommunism, then you need numbers; which you don't exactly get without convincing arguments. I'm no anarchocommunist, what exactly can you do to sway me, or anyone else on this forum, to a neutral or even positive position on civilization?

Why should I spend hours trying to describe something that comrades have so beautifully painted the picture of?

I don't care if you do or don't. I already knew you couldn't.

The essay is excellent, if only we remove those paragraphs about primitivism. We don’t have to.

That's a blatant lie, considering the fact they wouldn't publish the essay without them.

3

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact

And yet...they aren't around anymore; the anti-civ critique of large-scale industrial society is more comparable to present societies than what you believe will come.

And, that I do not care if they weren’t.

That's called "faith", and it's the realm of the "supernatural religious" people that you're attempting to disassociate with and tack on to primitivists.

I do believe all that because I’m an anarchist, my point in this thread being that large egalitarian social structures are far from unprecedented, this being a scientific fact. And, that I do not care if they weren’t.

Being an anarchist is truly believing in the principle that we can and we will leave all together in peace with nature. Regardless of what you or the other side believes.

Blind faith and wishful thinking don't sway me, nor do I define anarchists as having these qualities.

You don't have to prove that " large egalitarian social structures" existed, nor do you have to disprove that civilization and surplus resources lead to hierarchy; but if you're going to try to convince anyone here that civilization can be used for the benefit of anarchism, you should make a better case for it than "facts be damned, this is what I believe in". If you can't do that, then you're wasting everyone's time; if you can, then do it; you made the claim, prove it.

Tell me how industrial civilization can produce unlimited resources for several billion people without impeding on their autonomy while avoiding mass extinction of multiple species and environmental devastation while also making sure no one has to work while also making sure that the means of inventing, manufacturing, using, and distributing technology doesn't rely on the coercion and exploitation of the global south and its people while also uniting several billion individuals to unite under this shared banner.

Don't send me some text someone else wrote either, you were sure enough of yourself to come here and argue, use your own words.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

do we need to believe in the myth? are we supernatural religious people after all?

You believe antiwork is somehow compatible with some utopian vision of vastly populated cities with a well-fed population that is completely absent of law (thus policing and social stratification) while somehow also being able to "protect nature" and avert climate disaster.

Unprecedented societal structures that only exist in the minds of optimists are in of themselves mythical.

btw the communists are among the firsts to support the spectre of our noble past, amongst others such as... the supporters of capitalism and the state

Wouldn't be the first time these groups agreed about something; was this supposed to strengthen your argument?

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Fridge/freezer finally got fixed a couple of days ago; we moved here 2 months ago and had to wait 5 weeks before the repairman could get the part he needed to get; over $200 worth of groceries spoiled and the landlord sent us a fucking mini fridge that stopped working well after, like, 3 days as if that was some sort of reasonable substitute.

Still pissed about that because it found a way to haunt me: veggie burgers melted and froze again and I didn't even realize it until I tried heating them; they were a misshapen, half fused lump, didn't care until I heated them up again. Cold in the middle, warm everywhere else. Terrible.

7

CaptainACAB wrote

They're both sub-categories of "humanist" to me. The values that overlap between them are those of an egalitarian humanism. They are not the same because leftists are not capitalists and liberals are not socialists. I consider what the US calls "progressives" and "conservatives" a subset of liberal (because they both espouse the values conjured up by enlightenment-era liberals and make no attempt to refute any of them); leftists do this too, but the concept of private property is too integral to liberal ideology and economics, so I consider them separate.

Both are pro-civ humanist collectivists, so I choose to lump them together into that category instead of just using them interchangeably.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

I would feel sad and afraid; not because of random people dying or the anarcho-terrorist uptick, but because the state's response would be even worse and I'm pretty sure right-wing vigilantism would increase, which would, at best, be just as bloody.

I'd foresee a lot of draconian law enforcement, state surveillance, and centrist handwringing against political extremism and violence.

7

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in by !deleted36619

Idk, my extremely limited experience with therapy

',:/

You know...when some people criticize a widely upheld institution (particularly one known for both abuse and corruption), the last response they want to hear is a retort that is essentially an anecdote about an outlier in the overall system.

Like, if someone says that they suffered under police brutality and someone else points out flaws with the policing as a whole; do you really think a story about how "one cop let you off with a warning that one time, so it really depends on the person doing the policing" is in any way, shape, or form anything other than aggravating and insensitive?

I basically just got tips on how to deal with the negative emotional fallout from said being a societal outcast. In fact she actually called me out as sacrificing my desires and goals to not be judged and attacked for my unconventional lifestyle and tried to help me do more queer and criminal shit lol.

Like...good for you, I guess? That doesn't really mean that the institution as a whole isn't abusive or a tool for forced conformity.

I had a bunch of cool teachers, but you won't catch me defending the education system.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Actually, I absolutely can.

“According to my client, [his managers] started reading him the riot act and accused him of stealing other co-workers’ joy,” Bucher told Link NKY.

Bucher said: “The way [they] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent.”

^ That's how I know it's real.

7