CaptainACAB

CaptainACAB wrote

Revolution has always led to mere reform and Marxist-LastNameism in practice tends to just become authoritarian states with a bigger welfare net at best.

I think I like the idea of a Social Revolution, so the kind spouted by the likes of Kropotkin, in that the "revolution" would be a decentralised movement that grows from the bottom-up to overthrow the establishment. I want to evoke this feeling in my community, by starting a veg garden and (hopefully) getting people interested in communal food growing, then trying to logically expand on this.

This one has some potential at least. They just need to ditch the "revolution" bit.

7

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in Finish the Industrial Zone by Kinshavo

I never wanted a job growing up.

The adults in my life always complained about bills and how much they hated their jobs so often that I had no enthusiasm for it.

What I did want to do was live off of big stores that sold a bunch of shit. Like, I used to daydream about eating stolen food in a corner where no one could see me and sneaking in to mattress stores at night for a place to sleep.

Then I learned that people get paid to patrol these places, hate the homeless, and are encouraged to snitch.

7

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Out of curiosity, how do you survive without groups / society?

I don't. I was forced into society and branded the state's property, the same as everyone with a birth certificate, and am unable to escape without participating in society. The state owns the land, and I'd still need money (and by extension, a JOB) in order to even move somewhere with viable land, let alone get any.

Where do you get your power from? Your clothes? Your Xbox?

Are you dead ass conflating these things with survival necessities? I haven't an Xbox in years.

Are you going to tell me you make it all yourself?

You can make your own food and clothing. There's a historical precedence, believe it or not. Hell, people grow their own food today.

"Had you paid court to Dionysius, you wouldn't now be washing vegetables!"

"Had you learned to wash vegetables, you would not have to court to Dionysius!"

If you can't see the difference between genuine cooperation and compromising yourself to become a part of some collective entity, then I don't expect to gain anything of value in taking you seriously.

I can't even strawman you people, you're just that blatantly terrible at discussion.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Look at the ego on this one!

"I've never heard of them and haven't read them, so they have less worth in describing a political philosophy against authority."

Who even are you?

"Representatives of anarchism", my god. Why should worth be placed on popularity rather than content when it comes to Anarchist theory?

7

CaptainACAB OP wrote

I'm considering doing a follow up or even a rewrite to this piece now.

There's definitely something cooking up in my head now that I'm looking at it again after about 2 years.

In any case, you've made my week by posting this now; it's cool that something I wrote apparently stuck with you enough to remember it/try to find it two years after I made it, and to think highly enough of it to recommend it someone. And of course the same goes to all of the people up-voting the recommendation.

I'm rarely ever satisfied with how my writings turn out after I initially finish, so it's nice to know that some people like them.

4

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

This attitude is prevalent among anarchists living in places that benefit from neoliberal policy. The west and it's current dominance through neoliberalism.

There are far more anarchists who are surprised by the state's capacity for violence (particularly when it strikes them, as it's violence was previously imagined, a hypothetical; not an experienced reality) because they've never really opposed Western power structures before. It's "displaced" from their lives; an abstraction. As opposed just about anyone living somewhere that doesn't benefit from neoliberalism, who have to face their own state violence due to and in addition to the West's. This, of course, doesn't come off as as a surprise to westerners of marginalized groups due to the fact that they don't really "get" all of the benefits of living in the West as well as having to deal with state violence as well.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to Chokers by Yatothagod

Other people care far more about clothes than I do.

I stim, daydream, and exhibit behavior that is often considered "abnormal", so I'm in no position and have no desire to uphold social mores.

At most, I'd give a second glance, because of how rigid and widespread gender conforming behavior is; it's pretty rare for me to see someone that doesn't conform to it.

Usually, I'm far too obsessed with how well I'm masking in public to even pay attention to how "normal" everyone else is.

6

CaptainACAB wrote

I'm always seeing that talking point and if there's a refutation that involves defining civilization, I invariably see something about the definition being poor or some other argument that amounts to defining civilization as some force of good or a neutral thing co-opted by evil forces (the latter I see from communists trying to refocus on Capitalism. The cowards.).

Is there some sort of standard definition for civilization that exists that I'm supposed to point to every time I want disparage civilization on a forum populated primarily by anti-civ types? Because I don't wanna have to fucking do that, the pro-civs should start following the practices, and therefor the definitions, of the majority when they come here; it's what their precious civilization's been making "the out-group" do since its existence.

Anyone from, like, the civilizations of the Aztec empire or ancient Egypt is more than welcome to come here and inform us of the benefits and longevity of civilization, but the fanatics of the current era of Western Civilization can fuck off since we all currently have to live under the yoke of the consequences of the Enlightenment.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Violence is a tool.

Either use it with the expectation that others will use it against you or don't use it at all if you can't deal.

Thankfully, this is not an anarchist exclusive issue; fascists, liberals, and communists do it, too.

Still I can't help but wonder if any of the "propaganda of the deed" era anarchists completely forgot about the state's monopoly on acceptable violence; did any illegalist express surprise when they found themselves at a metaphorical or literal guillotine after stabbing an aristocrat? Is this a new thing brought by decades of unchallenged neoliberalism and Western privilege?

6

CaptainACAB wrote

Likely a counter-cultural response to cultural Christianity; embracing the villain of Christianity as a force of freedom/good and painting its overarching force (the Abrahamic God) as a tyrannical force. Not sure what they'd think of Christ himself; I find that Christians focus more on God than Jesus or meld the two into one idea.

Satanists are either Randian Objectivists or Liberals depending on which school you're talking about; Anarcho-Satanists would likely just be irreligious socialists that enjoy an "opposite" Cultural Christian aesthetic; but they're still using Christian figures as an aesthetic, so they're probably not all that interesting.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

Due to my drastically changed schedule, I've gone back to my hobbies of reading and writing because video games are pretty much impossible for me to play outside of my days off now.

It's actually been pretty nice; I glanced at a short story I left unfinished in mid 2016, found myself horribly embarrassed by it and wrote something else. When I finish my little story I'll compare the two side by side to see how much I've improved.

Also, started working on my ankle mobility because it turns out that I've been doing squats in the worst possible way this whole goddamn time.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Capitalism was the label given to the economic system by anti-capitalists that wanted to give voice to the structure that they saw as oppressive, where are you getting these "principles" from?

Seriously, what we call Capitalism was never a planned system, it just became what it is due to a vast variety of decisions and stimuli created across generations of people and interconnected societies; how does a set of general principles arise from such an amalgamation of reactions?

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Right. I still don't see much of a difference between what you're saying and what ziq said.

You:

I say that yes you can't just have Joe Biden read a bunch of articles on the anarchist library to become an anarchist. In my experience the only times people actually learn and understand anarchy if their current life situation is one conductive to having anarchist ideas. Queerness, victim of war, poverty, shitty jobs, prison and hating your job are a few examples.

ziq:

If you're the kind of person who has long leaned on the steady, guiding hand of authority, who lives in fear of life without the blood-soaked safety nets that have been wrapped tightly around you to make you feel warm and fuzzy while the rest of the world burns just out of sight, are you really going to abandon those proclivities just because you read some zines about capitalism's failings?

You:

No one who is happy or satisfied with the status will take that time and effort to understand so they are incapable of learning anarchism. This is why it appears such large portions of the population are incapable of understanding anarchist thought.

ziq:

If it ever fell on you to slay leviathan, and watch every luxury and security you know and depend on spew out of its belly and rot, would you valiantly lift that sword and charge the beast, or turn and scarper back to civilization's warm embrace?

I guess my question is: what exactly is it that you want to talk about?

The only difference I see between your thought and ziq's is that you both use the word "taught" differently: ziq basically used taught to mean "knowledge granted and used willingly" and you seem to use it as just "knowledge granted", more or less but your conclusions seem to be the same.

Is this topic just something that you'd like to discuss but couldn't because it's a year old post at this point? If so, I just misunderstood what you were going for.

5

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

I'm not really seeing much of a difference between your conclusion and theirs.

To me, it seemed that ziq was basically saying this.

Where exactly do you disagree? What do you mean anarchy can be "taught"?

6

CaptainACAB wrote

This Steven Symes sounds like, and I don't use these terms lightly, a weenie; a square; a complete dork, if you will.

It as a demonstration of power as these criminals (because they were absolutely breaking the law) thumbed their nose at city government and the police.

[Blows a raspberry]

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in friday free talk by emma

It didn't come across that way.

There's also the fact that victim blaming those facing financial misfortune is a popular capitalist talking point and that anti-capitalists really don't like hearing it or any talk about how it can be a valid criticism on a few instances.

It's not a good solution on a systemic level but for many individuals it's real good advice.

This is not one of those individual cases, so the fact that you'd justify the talking point comes across as needlessly contrarian at best.

Finally, there's the matter of the fact that picking out individual cases to refute critiques/complaints about systemic issues makes a lot of people with a radical political bent very angry and, regardless of your intentions, your response comes a little too close to that rhetoric. Criticism was a poor word choice.

6

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in friday free talk by emma

if you are doing it to people who are poor, not asking for advice and or not frivolous spenders u r being a total prick.

I didn't downvote you, because I'm super inconsistent about clicking good arrow and bad arrow, but you're being downvoted for pretty much doing this.

annikastheory is venting about people trying to micromanage their income by determining what is and what isn't "a wasteful purchase" under the guise of financial advice and responding with "well, they might have a point in other situations" makes you look like an ass because it's an unsolicited criticism that didn't really need to be said.

I've nothing to say about your actual point as to how valid this "advice" is, because I don't have those statistics and am not interested in looking them up.

6

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by annikastheory in friday free talk by emma

Yeah, your small comfort purchases usually don't take up much from your paycheck; lower-class folk save and scrimp more than people with larger pools of disposable income. I get shit for enjoying video games and not making a career out of it because "doing what you love" means turning a passion or a hobby into another soulless transaction/commodity.

If I don't buy lunch out and save $5 every time I do it, I'm gonna end up with $120 at the end of the year. People blow that on one week's worth of groceries.

If it were that easy, poverty would be eliminated. What's that? People get rich not through exploitation but through hard work, smart spending, and merit? Why aren't you rich then, huh? Why the fuck am I even listening to you, you fucking chump; you're literally in the same goddamned house that I'm in.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by Ashy in friday free talk by emma

I still have nightmares about going to highschool, not sure if anyone else does.

Afterschool programs are even worse. School food (if any at all), forced "fun", and most of the other kids that I've met there were total assholes.

An inevitable outcome of low income homes with poor transportation alternatives and schools being too far away, I guess.

6