3 ms·

> I guess I "outgrew" it. It's fun when you are in high school. I don't think "fun" is the word for anarchism. I mean, maybe you had a very privileged/singular

> I guess I "outgrew" it. It's fun when you are in high school. I don't think "fun" is the word for anarchism. I mean, maybe you had a very privileged/singular experience of approaching anarchism from a theoretical standpoint. But the bloody repression faced by anarchists around the globe is not "fun". Don't get me wrong, i'm glad you had fun with rebellious ideas. There is fun to have in living in the moment and trying your best to fight injustice. I'm just slightly upset that you would consider what is the only hope for actual liberation for millions of people a simple fun youth concern. > I think capitalism works well so long as people can keep it honest. Can you elaborate? How does institutionalized injustice/violence "work well"? Where i'm from in France is pretty fucked up: we're millions living in poverty and facing police/fascist killings and beatings while a tiny elite eats caviar and drinks champagne in the fancy restaurants of Paris. (without even mentioning white supremacy and islamophobia/antisemitism) > Nations are the problem, not capitalism. Don't you think they're the two sides of the same coin? How could capitalist inequalities maintain themselves without a central State to exert violence against those who refuse this rule? How could a tyrannical regime maintain itself without sharing some of the benefits of exploitation with a (capitalist) elite?

coldtea 7y ago
>Can you elaborate? How does institutionalized injustice/violence "work well"? It could very well be that some institutionalized violence is necessary for society to work, and some injustice is inevitable in the process (humans being imperfect). If in your perfect anarchist society I was hell bent on smacking you down (and I was quite larger than you), would the society just let it happen, or would it employ some sort of "violence"? And if said society had some rules and/or specific people to handle those situations, wouldn't the violence be "institutionalized"? >How could capitalist inequalities maintain themselves without a central State to exert violence against those who refuse this rule? How could a tyrannical regime maintain itself without sharing some of the benefits of exploitation with a (capitalist) elite? Quite easily? We've had tyrannical regimes before capitalism two (feudal, asiastic, and several other forms). We even had tyrannical regimes promising the end of tyranny and capitalism (e.g. Stalinist USSR). Nothing to say we couldn't have a tyrannical regime promising anarchism as well. People can use all ideas/ideologies/regimes to serve their own purposes. And of course you don't need a central state to have inequalities or tyranny. A number of powerful groups that prey on less powerful ones is enough. They don't even have to be permanent, groups could assemble at will and at different configurations to prey on those less powerful (like e.g. barbaric tribes used to do) and then stop existing after they've succeeded.

coldtea 7y ago

>Can you elaborate? How does institutionalized injustice/violence "work well"? It could very well be that some institutionalized violence is necessary for society to work, and some injustice is inevitable in the process (humans being imperfect). If in your perfect anarchist society I was hell bent on smacking you down (and I was quite larger than you), would the society just let it happen, or would it employ some sort of "violence"? And if said society had some rules and/or specific people to handle those situations, wouldn't the violence be "institutionalized"? >How could capitalist inequalities maintain themselves without a central State to exert violence against those who refuse this rule? How could a tyrannical regime maintain itself without sharing some of the benefits of exploitation with a (capitalist) elite? Quite easily? We've had tyrannical regimes before capitalism two (feudal, asiastic, and several other forms). We even had tyrannical regimes promising the end of tyranny and capitalism (e.g. Stalinist USSR). Nothing to say we couldn't have a tyrannical regime promising anarchism as well. People can use all ideas/ideologies/regimes to serve their own purposes. And of course you don't need a central state to have inequalities or tyranny. A number of powerful groups that prey on less powerful ones is enough. They don't even have to be permanent, groups could assemble at will and at different configurations to prey on those less powerful (like e.g. barbaric tribes used to do) and then stop existing after they've succeeded.