When the carceral state abolisher supports building a new carceral apparatus with even more state restrictions on "bourgeois luxuries" like free speech.

"b-b-but it's not repressive, we're just locking up the right people, like the dirty kulaks and counter-revolutionaries who don't like our glorious strongman leader"

i have jsut never got behind using hierarchies as the sole judgement on whether or not a social movement is deemed "good", seems pretty one-sided, whenever i hear an anarchist talk about something i'm always shocked cause that's the #1 thing they always talk about

"oh, yeah.."
scratches my head
"hierarchies. right."

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kuwasi-balagoon-anarchy-can-t-fight-alone

Kuwasi Balagoon, an ex-BPP member and a New Afrikan anarchist described his contentions with the BPP national leadership having to do with that.

There's a reason anarchists hammer on about it, is because the root of a lot of strife in anything is hierarchy and power differences. I sincerly recommend reading stuff from Kuwasi Balagoon and a lot of the ex-Panthers and even non-Panthers who came into anarchism, who became anarchists due to their experience with the shortcomings of the ML movement and how it arguably played in a role in its own downfall, and how they reflected on their positions while incarcerated.

Parties eventually lead to bare reformism, you can see it in the historical examples of Communist parties running nations until they are the antithesis of what they said they fought for, and new leaders can modify whatever they want for their own ambitions at will, kinda similar to American representative democracy and new administrations coming in every 4 years. Mao to Deng, for example.

I'll admit, maybe I come in like a prick sometimes ITT, but it's only in the way MLs treating anarchists as nothing but counter-revolutionaries who deserve to die in eternal damnation because they don't submit to centralized and totalitarian authority.

I've seen the ML stuff (Lenin, Parenti, etc.) that's been cited and offered, and it's not really good. It just defends the perpetuation of states, instead of working to dissolve it like Marx said would happen. I mean, the fatal flaw of just reducing criticisms down to "lol anarkiddies don't understand material conditions and global capitalism being a threat" is that groups have autonomously fought for themselves while under siege of Capital, and have effectively resisted states while doing so. Hell, that's why decentralized guerilla movements have historically worked well against states/occupiers. I'd argue that anarchists/other libsocs have seen the current material conditions and history as predictors and don't want us to fall into a repeat of the past's failures again and again.

I'd argue, if socialism/communism so desperately needs a state to happen and how hierarchy and centralized command are so effective at bringing it, what brings communism/socialism itself, if achieved, to not fall back into that "effective" structure once again?

I'd even argue a lot of ML arguments for the perpetuation and existence of the state end up being anti-communist arguments themselves, even if unintentional. You're saying communism and socialism is inherently weak and will not survive, even amongst its "liberated" people that would see the true "effectiveness" of the "state capitalist" state and would want it to be reinstated again, and not the "chaos" of the egalitarian communist land, by your own logic. I mean, this is what the arrogance of claiming "AES" existing and them just being nationalized states with one-party social democracy brings you.

I'll leave this here. The benevolent state building "productive forces in developing nations" at work.

Don't go to Hasan for theory bro

Just stop quoting sniper

He's either going through a phase or he's braindead

Let him figure it out on his own it's not worth it

On this day we remember the great tragedy that began on September the 11th 1973 with the bombing of the Chilean presidential palace by the Fuerza Aérea de Chile and culminated in the death and overthrow of President Salvador Allende and the replacement of the democratically elected government by a hard-right military Junta, and the overwhelmingly negative consequences which flowed as a result.

NEVER FORGET

It's working backwards

"The state is bad"

So then he has to justify it after the conclusion is already determined

Instead of a***yzing the historical role of the state and its necessity in maintaining the dotp until it ofc withers away

There are two types of anarchists:

Those that are anarchists because they see the state as an inherent evil regardless of its class nature that needs to be abolished right away and will go on demented anti-communist rants because of that

And those that are anarchists because they think that without abolishing the state the revolution will inevitably fail, but they don't treat MLs as their arch enemy and side with imperialists when ML states are under attack

I can sympathize with the second type even if I disagree and I respect a lot of them, but I think we should realize that Marxists really don't have that much in common with the first type

crazy how the mental health industry grows every year

what's the alternative?

would u prefer a world where socialist China doesn't exist?

Don't confuse influencer infighting for politics.

Read Michael Heinrich's Introduction to Capital.
Read Engels' Socialism Utopian & Scientific.

its crazy how Kanye is aware of exploitation under capitalism but still directly fuels it and he himself is a capitalist

speaking of that ye s***

i been having lots of “accidentally communist” conversations with people who when we talk about s*** they have conservative talking points but they say

“i wish it could be like that”
“i wish we didn’t have to worry about money as much as we do and could just do away with it”
“I would be a socialist if it could work”

etc...

People who are capable of thinking, know deep down something is wrong

i’m there thinking like “Well, there’s literature on that if you’re interested”

gonna keep having these convos and see if i can sharpen how i articulate some of the better points of socialism.

start 1 person at a time

Yes we agree, but that won’t happen until a state that chooses to actually progress towards that goal achieves hegemony over other states with other goals in mind

with a socialist state hegemony, the leaders won’t want to let go of that power and start an egalitarian communist society

we’ve already seen throughout all of history, empirical power will never be given up by its controllers, it will always perpetuate itself

this is why i believe MLism is fatally flawed in actually addressing power relations

I look forward to a good faith answer to this question

You can expect people to bring up exaggerated deaths in the soviet Union and famine stats, all the while never addressing you.

That question has been answered like a million times already lmao

Even just itt let alone by Marxist writers

thing is in late stage capitalism everybody's aware of the contradictions inherent in capitalism.

the issue is who's pushing what answers to what means

it's interesting to be living through what marx had wrote about late stage capitalism

at a certain point you can no longer deny the inherent flaws in capitalism and even the most vehement liberals have to admit it. frustrating as hell tho trying to get them to see past their eyes tho

“As a materialist I know that life will end some day. What is most important to me is to be an optimist, with the conviction that others will continue the work to which I am committed, and will carry it forward until they reach our final goal, communism.” - Chairman Gonzalo

Rest In Peace Chairman Gonzalo!