ziq wrote

Last I checked his main hostility towards anti-civ types came mainly from his work critiquing what he called lifestyle anarchism

Uh he literally called us fascists. Maybe you need to read more Bookchin.

Ok. So what exactly would you define as civilization? 

Don't pretend civilization isn't already clearly defined in anarchist theory in thousands of texts. My definition doesn't stray from the standard definition. Your wanting to pretend these simple words with crystal clear definitions are somehow up in the air and that maybe red and green and hierarchy and anarchy are the same thing is again, entryism.

Of all the places to do entryism, this is the one place where you won't succeed because I'll call it what it is every time.


ziq wrote

Bookchin's earlier works especially in regards to social ecology is extremely compatible with anticiv perspectives.

You don't understand anticiv. Bookchin's ideas are not anticiv in any way when his solutions all come down to "more civ". If anything, he's demonized and smeared anticiv ideas more than any single individual in history.

But this continued doublespeak is why you're an entryist. No better than Leninists telling us Lenin is extremely compatible with anarchy, as they do.


ziq wrote (edited )


so that's not you?




and that?


or here where you specifically acknowledge bookchin's marxist elements?

Bookchin and libertarian municipalism is incorporated with him mixing with more Marxist aspects. The result being neither anarchist nor Marxist

or further in that thread where you claim marxism and anarchy are compatible after someone points out Bookchin wasn't an anarchist?

Murray Bookchin didn't necessarily stop being anarchist but decided to try and retain his Marxist views alongside anarchism

marxism-bookchinism isn't anarchy, he very openly promoted authority

he states time and time again that he wasn't an anarchist and didn't support anarchy

which makes you an entryist for claiming otherwise


ziq OP wrote

you know capitalism existed before neoliberalism, right? you can't pine for 'true capitalism' on one hand and then claim it never existed on the other. capitalism has had plenty of time to create the fairness you claim it was designed for, but all it's done is exploit the bodies of billions to funnel wealth to capitalists.

an economic system that relies on the separation of classes (rich and poor, capitalist and worker) is by definition incapable of fairness


ziq OP wrote (edited )

i've always been way more interested in getting behind the underdog personally, and even though they were usually second or third or finally fourth place, the games were always far more creative, fun and risk-taking than anything on the rival consoles

even ignoring the quality of the games, technologically, saturn was far superior to playstation as a 2D machine, and as a 3d machine if the programmer knew what they were doing (so only SEGA's internal teams)

Dreamcast had online play before anyone and the only reason ps2 destroyed it was because everyone wanted a cheap dvd player. ps2 didn't have a single good game for more than a year after its release, while dreamcast had the single best launch line up of any console in history.

master system was way more powerful than nes but as someone who had both nes and sms, the games on nes appealed to kids a lot more, while sms was filled with arcade ports. wouldn't have been fun having an sms in north america though since they pulled support for it early and a lot of the later games weren't released. in a lot of the world, the sms was the market leader.

mega drive imo was a technologically superior console to the snes even though it was released years earlier. every snes game plays slow as shit, which is why all the great shmups and run n guns are on mega drive while snes just has a bunch of slow ass rpgs and platformers