ziq wrote

Yup, for sure. From permies:

Mushrooms mushrooms mushrooms! Colonize with types you love to eat, and they will break down the wood into components that bacteria can eat, which are consumed by flagellates, which create bio available nitrogen when they die. If you really want to get things going, spray liquid fish and black strap molasses on the mulch to give the fungus and bacteria a boost. Alternative to consumeable mushrooms, you can buy a root dip and mix with water, the one from Paul Stamets has 30 or so different mushroom types which help roots of plants and many are sapotrophic, or you could buy "effective microbes" or do compost teas. You have many options to help nature along.


Reply to comment by ziq in by alex

ziq wrote

the same thing happened the other day when someone posted a noncompete video to f/anarchism and it had a good convo going about his tankie entryism and then OP deleted it, I guess because people were critical of the lenin apologism in the video


ziq OP wrote (edited )

I reject end goals because I see anarchy as an unending process, not a goal. Do any of us expect to see global communist society in our life time?

People who organize in meatspace tend to be much more cooperative and that work itself, feeds their sense of fulfillment, making them want more of it. I'm sure you already have experience with this.

Some. But more bad experiences than good ones.

There are some common things that are evolutionary hard-wired into our brains though. Surely you acknowledge that?

Like survival? Sure. Unless you happen to be suicidal anyway.


ziq OP wrote

Therefore anarchists would not have a reason to conflict with other anarchists by definition!

But look at all the infighting we do as anarchists everyday. You're saying I shouldn't even be an admin on an anarchist site because you define authority differently than I do. We don't have real reason to conflict, yet somehow we manage to do it anyway. How many anarchists do you honestly get along with? There's very few I get along with tbh.

If they would, then they wouldn't be anarchists because they go against anarchist theory!

Sure, but when you're applying 'anarchist society' to 7 billion people, who's to say they'll all be good anarchists? They could end up being the kind of anarchists that consider cops to be a 'justified authority'. And then you have an 'anarchist society' that has cops, prisons and a state because a bunch of clowns decided those things are justified.

Honestly, I don't even know what we're arguing anymore at this point. I think our core disagreement comes down to the classic "human nature" thing, where you think humans are inherently evil and need constant supervision to not fuck everything up, and I think humans are inherently good and need constant conditioning from childbirth to go against it.

I don't think humans are inherently evil. I think there is no human nature. Everyone is different.


ziq OP wrote

Nah, you still don't get it. I claim that the society will only turn anarchistic if via the struggles to improve our lives (and avoid ecological disaster) people radicalize enough via their own struggles to start using anarchist praxis (i.e. mutual aid & direct action in a horizontal power structure) because it works. If enough people start doing this within capitalism, then capitalism itself will collapse due to its inherent instability and if we manage to survive the counter-revolution, we will have an anarchist society.

Yeah I agreed until the last couple words. I think as soon as you declare it an anarchist society, then you've lost; because you can't permanently beat authority. It'll always keep coming back and you have to keep fighting it.

If you declare you've achieved anarchy then you're basically announcing you've retired from the struggle, and will just ignore all further authority that pops up because authority no longer exists in your mind because we have an anarchist society now.

The people who are still clinging to hierarchical and oppressive norms, will by definition at this point be in the minority, at which point they will either discard their existing way of thinking, or be ostracized. With the former being the most likely due to peer-pressure. Historical examples back me up on this, even in their nascent forms.

You have faith in humanity and you're hoping for the best, which is great, but my cynical ass is not so convinced humans will do the logical thing when so many people crave the high of power.

I'm also not convinced the anarchist way of thinking is the default after seeing how selfish, cruel and spiteful small children can be when they haven't even experienced the horrors of the world yet.

I keep telling you that you're just assuming what I believe and you keep missing the mark.

Sorry, I did my best to understand what you were saying.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

Mutual aid is something that exists all over nature and human history for sure, but it doesn't stop opposing communities from having conflicts. A community or even a set of communities using mutual aid to better their lives doesn't stop another community with a different culture from also using mutual aid to cross the sea and attack them all.


ziq OP wrote

Why are you imagining that every community of hunter-gatherers in history, across diverse landscapes and cultures acted the same? Why do all ancoms imagine there's a distinct human nature that can be easily defined and understood? You see the world in such binary terms and I suspect that's why you think 'communist society' will automatically be a utopia.


ziq OP wrote

And yet you claim that it was an anarchist failing.

No, I say it's a communist failing. I don't consider anarchy to be the same thing as communism because I'm not an ancom.

So you blatantly disregard how in Russia that the chaos of the World War and the inexperience with Authoritarian forms of Socialism led the soviets to accept Leninist rule and how Anarchists were slaughtered for opposing it?

I did? No.

This is what you expect however since you think you can somehow convince 7 billion people to choose death for some primmie ideals...

Uh? Why would I want to die?

Anarchists actually propose changing people via praxis. By using organizations that actually improve their lives and in the process radicalize them.

I'm all for that. But 2000 anarchists aren't going to radicalize 7 billion liberals and even if we did they wouldn't be perfect people just because they've been educated.

Anarchism literally means "without leaders", which effectively means "no hierarchical authority". Not to mention that political theories are not defined by dictionary.

Anarchists have always had leaders. It's rulers we don't have. Anarchy means without authority, not without leaders. Certain personality types tend to take the lead / be more vocal in any group but that's no reason to give them authority.

Those women/men/children were not slaves in the modern understanding of the word as that was literally impossible due to the realities of subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

I don't even know how to respond to that. They meet every definition of the word 'slave'. Nothing says slaves have to be agrarian.

Not if they're importing from anarchists.

Anarchists in Spain murdered nuns. Calling yourself an anarchist doesn't make you perfect or incapable of doing harm.

Why are you even running an anarchist forum? Dafuq?!

Anarchy and communism are two different words. How can you be an anarchist for this long and not know ancoms aren't the only anarchists? Declaring ancoms to be the only real anarchists isn't very anarchistic.

Are you just declaring your frustration now? This is both irrelevant to the example we were discussing ("starve of exploit") and not what I actually believe.

The difference in opinion we're having is really very simple. I don't believe people can be controlled or defined by the society construct they're boxed into, I don't believe they will always act as they're expected to act just because they exist in a self-proclaimed ancom society. You think them being in that society is all it takes to ensure liberation happens; that communism is a permanent cure for all of the planet's ills. I don't. I don't believe people can be controlled by ideology or society or "revolution". Revolution isn't a goal you achieve one day, and everyone is immediately free - it's a neverending process.

Your anarchy is a clear singular goal - a communist society where you grant authority and control to people you think deserve it using democracy.

My anarchy is a perpetual struggle against all authority and control.


ziq OP wrote

I suggest you look into the actual history of those revolutions

I've researched and written in depth about both Russia and China's failed attempts to establish communism.

The reason to assume it is the actual theory of praxis that they suggest we follow and then you evaluate whether that makes sense.

7 billion people aren't going to act in unison to put some dead man's theory into practice exactly as he envisioned. In the real world, theory doesn't play out the way it does on paper because people are unpredictable and impossible to control.

You call it 'expertise', I call it 'authority'.

Anarchy literally mean "against authority". It's baffling to me that any anarchist would be pro-authority or try to redefine authority into something positive.

Slavery was impossible before agriculture. I suggest you re-examine the actual origins human social structures.

The first slaves were women captured during raids by non-agrarian tribes. They raided settlements, killed the men and took the women and children.

Who said that anarchists are going to judge people based on their self-identification. We can judge by actions.

You by assuming anarchists in some faraway land aren't exploiting anyone when you import their goods out of convenience.

Again, there is no motive within anarchist society to do that.

There is no anarchist society. That would require all hierarchy to cease to exist. Anarchy is a perpetual struggle against authority. The moment you declare you've achieved anarchist society is the moment you become Mao.

This is Irrelevant to our discussion

It really isn't. You think everyone will act the way you want then to act because communism. You have no control over the direction society will take. Declaring anarcho-communism won't mean everything will work out.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

The bolsheviks didn't fight the revolution, the people did. The people fought for communism. And then authority (Lenin and the bolsheviks) fucked it all up.

The bolsheviks weren't MLs, they were just Marxists. Stalin coined the ML descriptor later. Lenin was a Marxist who tried to actualize Marx's theory into praxis.

When you try to actualize communism, the problem is Marx said it could only happen in an advanced industrial society. Russia was agrarian with barely any industry to speak of. So Lenin tried to rapidly industrialize and of course it created a series of authoritarian atrocities.

I write more about this is one of my anarchistlibrary pieces. I think the 'fuck your red revolution' one. Edit: prob the tankies and left unity scam one


Reply to comment by ziq in by alex

ziq wrote

now I wish I had seen what this was