They are hypocrites and don't really have consistent ideology. Nobody really knows what anarchism is or how it is implemented. When you criticised it, they start moving goalposts saying that is not what anarchism is but cannot really tell you what anarchism is.
I can give you an example of the hierarchy within anarchism that they say does no exist: Anarchists often call for very drastic measures and forms of protest. Riots, setting fire to the establishment etc. You know the people actually doing this? The poor people who have nothing to lose. The more privileged within anarchism have too much to lose to do any of that dirty work. I see so many anarchists calling for riots whilst they do nothing themselves. They don't want to set fire to everything because they have too much built within capitalism to risk it. They do exactly what they criticise the state for doing. They encourage the proletariat to fight for them.
A recent example of the rapper in Spain playing the army man martyr. The guy is from a very privileged background. He has become a symbol for anarchism. People are burning down buildings for a very privileged white man who can play the martyr whilst all the proletariat getting f***ed over on the streets fighting for him get longer prison terms and get forgotten. The hierarchy is right there. The more privileged get more within anarchism.
Anarchy means there is no authority, for example no police, head of state or judges.
Hope thats explians it.
name one... and that doesnt make them not privileged 💀💀
Rosa Luxemburg
Rosa Luxemburg
But she was also privileged. white privilege
i meant name a movement lmao.
But she was also privileged. white privilege
i meant name a movement lmao.
well most well known movement was this one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
but also this another well known movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
you telling me indigenous people in Mexico are white now
at first i thought u were trolling but i don't see ur anger as unfounded at all
it is a weird paradox to be in where if you want to push back against capitalism i see only two ways:
1 Leverage power (political, capital) and try to amass enough support for systemic change while having to push against the entire system
or
2 Have a large enough force to convince the government to submit
this is something i dont know exactly what can be done about myself and have thought about it a lot. in the first case you need to invest yourself into capitalism and f*** other people in order to amass the power to enact change. on the other hand in something like a "revolution" the people who will suffer the most are the people without anything.
All this to say i dont kno the answer but i get ur frustration i dont think ur trolling
Thanks for the reply. It is something that needs to be discussed if people really want to tackle the current system. There are ways we can implement a mixed economy, but to completely tackle the free market takes a lot of hard work and self responsibility.
People say I am trolling and s*** posting because they do not want to take self responsibility. The amount of times I have seen a communist tell me there is no ethical consumption under capitalism when called out for stuff like this is insane. Anybody who uses that phrase does not want to take self responsibility. They will tell me it is all worthless and post the we are living in a society meme. The fact is that if somebody wants to tear down capitalism, they have to condition themselves to a life without it. They then need to start conditioning themselves to be tougher. To take whatever the state throws at then. To be homeless. To be put in prison. To be classified as a terrorist. Once that happens your human rights go. If somebody is not willing to condition themselves for these things then they are going to have to start thinking very carefully about their ideology and whether they truly want it. Perhaps they should start looking at a mixed economy instead and stop being so militant.
Appreciate your post. Not many discussions on how to implement these ideologies. We constantly talk about the problems but rarely the implementation of the solution. Both of your solutions for the implementation will lead to a lot of violence. The state will not give in. Democracy and freedom exists right up until it becomes a threat to the capitalist state. Once it becomes a threat, everyone opposing the state becomes a terrorist.
well most well known movement was this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
but also this another well known movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
you telling me indigenous people in Mexico are white now
i am also not marxist but i have more favourable things to say about these two movements then cuba or soviet union
well most well known movement was this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
but also this another well known movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
you telling me indigenous people in Mexico are white now
the first u listed started a war...
name one... and that doesnt make them not privileged 💀💀
Vietnam, Laos, China, Cuba, The Soviet Union, Nicaragua, I mean the list goes on pal
Vietnam, Laos, China, Cuba, The Soviet Union, Nicaragua, I mean the list goes on pal
💀💀
I also don't support communism and socialism
same i am not marxist
but tell me how someone being a communist means they are privileged
same i am not marxist
but tell me how someone being a communist means they are privileged
in todays day and age in the usa 99% of self proclaimed communists are communist because of selfish reasons: "I am living so give me s*** etc most belive tbey have a right to other peoples goods and services" also many want to start revolutions which is a very privileged way of thinking.
same i am not marxist
but tell me how someone being a communist means they are privileged
I mean, even Marx talked about this on some level. The people at the bottom of society were excluded from the discussion and deemed worthless.
Communism and any other ideologies do absolutely attract the privileged saviours who encourage the less privileged to fight for the cause. The less privileged lack the education of the more privileged to understand.
This is actually much of what I am talking about. The top is usually a well educated elite speaking to the less privileged to fight for his cause. The less privileged look to the elite for answers because they were denied the same privileges and education.
When it goes wrong, the privileged can just go on and live their life whilst the people who fought for the rot
I mean, even Marx talked about this on some level. The people at the bottom of society were excluded from the discussion and deemed worthless.
Communism and any other ideologies do absolutely attract the privileged saviours who encourage the less privileged to fight for the cause. The less privileged lack the education of the more privileged to understand.
This is actually much of what I am talking about. The top is usually a well educated elite speaking to the less privileged to fight for his cause. The less privileged look to the elite for answers because they were denied the same privileges and education.
When it goes wrong, the privileged can just go on and live their life whilst the people who fought for the rot
What you’re referring to is the Lumpenproletariat, Marx is dead and his theory is 200 years old. There are modern Marxist theories that consider the Lumpenproletariat as the most revolutionary class in modern America.
What I’m saying is applying Marx’s thought to today’s conditions is inherently anti-Marxist
What I’m saying is applying Marx’s thought to today’s conditions is inherently anti-Marxist
No true communist.
Don't like my posts @Travis_scott_
You are horrid. Unlike it.
I mean, even Marx talked about this on some level. The people at the bottom of society were excluded from the discussion and deemed worthless.
Communism and any other ideologies do absolutely attract the privileged saviours who encourage the less privileged to fight for the cause. The less privileged lack the education of the more privileged to understand.
This is actually much of what I am talking about. The top is usually a well educated elite speaking to the less privileged to fight for his cause. The less privileged look to the elite for answers because they were denied the same privileges and education.
When it goes wrong, the privileged can just go on and live their life whilst the people who fought for the rot
you are correct that some revolutionaries come from privileged background ie Lenin
but even in constraints of capitalism unionisation of workforce is form of socialism, its first step since it brings more democratic power to workers with collective bargaining. My dad & mum are both union members and fight for their rights. Both of them have never read much economic theory in their lives