• Sybil
    link
    03 months ago

    I don’t believe in rights. at least, there’s no such thing as an inalienable right, since governments can and do take them away. I’m not even sure how to begin to answer your question given that I think that you’re talking about fictions. sort of like asking me which anarchist society had the most thetans, or protection spirits.

    I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure. but I guess it’s true that some people still side with the wrong people at the second international.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I don’t believe in rights.

      Not even positive rights? You’re literally like “authority means it is by definition a class society” and you don’t believe in rights? How do you square that circle?

      It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don’t want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.

      I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure.

      And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.

      Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they’re not doing a transitional state?

      Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I’d love to hear it.

      • Sybil
        link
        13 months ago

        Not even positive rights?

        no

      • Sybil
        link
        13 months ago

        it’s not new. gallianists have been at it for a century.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Sorry, I set the bar too low.

          Feasible plans for a classless society day one.

          How far have they gotten in that century? Because honestly the whole “at it for a century” thing reeks of failure.

          • Sybil
            link
            13 months ago

            How far have they gotten in that century? Because honestly the whole “at it for a century” thing reeks of failure.

            they got the fucking arch duke (and dozens of other heads of state). they blew up wallstreet. i think these are pretty big accomplishments.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              13 months ago

              Oh, wow, so they killed some people and bombed wall street.

              How successful was that in achieving their political objectives?

              • Sybil
                link
                03 months ago

                very. they inspired millions, which was the goal of those actions.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  Okay, so, the end result of inspiring people means that their political project succeeded? Their end goal was to inspire people? I thought their end goal was a classless, stateless society?

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    03 months ago

                    I thought their end goal was a classless, stateless society?

                    right, but since we (they) eschew(ed) prefigurative theories, we (they) only organized to fight. the actual structure of society is up to the people who live in the world that we (they) make possible.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    03 months ago

                    that wasn’t their only goal, but it was one of them.

          • Sybil
            link
            13 months ago

            Sorry, I set the bar too low.

            Feasible plans for a classless society day one.

            nothing like moving the goalposts to end the workday.

            i’m opposed to prefigurative theories of revolution. we don’t know what society will look like in every corner of the world without oppression. we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              we do know what oppression is, and we can fight it.

              You’re against concentration of power. Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?

              It seems like you want to fight and lose.

              • Sybil
                link
                13 months ago

                Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?

                you’re going to need to define revolution and success and concentration, and at this point, we might as well just lay our cards on the table. you believe it’s only practical to have a transitional state. i have a suspicion about anything that even smells like a state. we will not reconcile this in !memes today.

                i don’t think i’m misrepresenting your position. i feel i understand it, and i disagree about the practicality of setting up a system of oppression to end oppression.

      • Sybil
        link
        -13 months ago

        It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don’t want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.

        that’s not what you proposed to use as a metric. i’m not sure how to quantify them and, frankly, or what a good measure would be, i guess.

        i do know that i don’t trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe. given the choice in constructing a revolution, i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they’re found.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          23 months ago

          i do know that i don’t trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe.

          Thats some right libertarian hyper-individualist hogwash. Stop being alienated from your fellow workers.

          i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they’re found.

          So, let’s say the workers form Soviets. Those Soviets have to be destroyed, right?

          • Sybil
            link
            03 months ago

            So, let’s say the workers form Soviets. Those Soviets have to be destroyed, right?

            it is going to depend, isn’t it? are the soviets operated with consent and consensus?

            i already explained i have no illusions that i can dictate what it’s going to look like after the revolution. i do know what i won’t tolerate.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              are the soviets operated with consent and consensus?

              Is this material to whether the soviet is concentrating power? Either way you have a small group of people making legislative and executive actions.

              • Sybil
                link
                -13 months ago

                Is this material to whether the soviet is concentrating power?

                a system that operates with consent and consensus has no authority.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  Okay, you need to actually define authority, because I feel like each anarchist I’ve encountered has a different definition.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    -1
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    I know this was lazy. but I think it’s good enough.

                    edit: oh. this is a bit better

          • Sybil
            link
            -13 months ago

            Thats some right libertarian hyper-individualist hogwash. Stop being alienated from your fellow workers.

            i have no problem working with my neighbors. i have big problems with someone tellingme how we should do that.

              • Sybil
                link
                -13 months ago

                if we’re working together I’m going to say how I think we should work.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    -13 months ago

                    implying that I don’t want to change the status quo doesn’t change whether I do.

      • Sybil
        link
        -13 months ago

        And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.

        we all know about the bootmaker, but i would say if there is an oppressive hierarchy, it’s not anarchist.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh. And they absolutely had authority. Hell, they had concentration camps.

          • Sybil
            link
            -13 months ago

            We should define an ideology by its actions, not just its claims.

            no. we should judge people by their actions. we should judge ideologies by their propositions.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              should judge ideologies by their propositions.

              Okay, I see. If we are judging ideologies purely by “wouldn’t it be nice if” then anarchism is clearly superior.

              Well, on second though, no. “wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t get defeated by fascists” certainly has a pretty nice ring to it…

              • Sybil
                link
                -13 months ago

                Okay, I see. If we are judging ideologies purely by “wouldn’t it be nice if” then anarchism is clearly superior.

                you almost got me

                Well, on second though, no. “wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t get defeated by fascists” certainly has a pretty nice ring to it…

                i’m not saying i have a good plan. i’m saying i am suspicious of any plan that concentrates power, and i believe my suspicion is warranted.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  i’m not saying i have a good plan. i’m saying i am suspicious of any plan that concentrates power, and i believe my suspicion is warranted.

                  I mean, look up the life expectancy of China vs India over time. Place your suspicion against the facts.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    -13 months ago

                    The fact is that China has police and prisons and banks. I don’t know for sure but I would guess they even have landlords. That’s not my revolution.

          • Sybil
            link
            -13 months ago

            I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh.

            you don’t get to define what i am.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              And you don’t get to no true Scotsman away the Catalonian or Ukrainian anarchists, who did large scale anarchist projects.

              • Sybil
                link
                -13 months ago

                if you have cops, you’re not a fucking anarchist society. this shouldn’t be hard to understand.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Okay, so at this point it seems anarchist societies are pretty impossible, if all these principled anarchists end up forming non-anarchist societies over and over again when they win power.

                  So what is even the point of being an anarchist? To feel good about yourself?

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    -13 months ago

                    which marxist project ended up stateless and classless?

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    03 months ago

                    it’s tautological

      • Sybil
        link
        -13 months ago

        Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state?

        yes. it’s why we split at the second international. i wish you all would give up on the transitional state.

          • Sybil
            link
            13 months ago

            large scale

            this is a setup for a no-true-scotsman. i’ll talk to you about anarchist societies, but i won’t let you define them out of existence.

              • Sybil
                link
                13 months ago

                i’m saying until you define “large scale” you gave your self enough wiggle room to push every scotsman into the sea.

                  • Sybil
                    link
                    13 months ago

                    and why should that be the metric?

      • Sybil
        link
        -13 months ago

        How do you square that circle?

        one has nothing to do with the other, except that hierarchies sometimes pretend to respect (or grant)rights, but the fact that they have the discretion means the rights, themselves, are fictions.

      • Sybil
        link
        -13 months ago

        You’re literally like “authority means it is by definition a class society” and you don’t believe in rights?

        right