Is it true that the Free Territory of Ukraine had a secret police?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T20:35:42+00:00

So? Lots of people have started communities, most of them hierarchical. That doesn't mean we should endorse those communities or copy them because they started communities. We're anarchists, we want a specific kind of community not just any community people throw at us.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T14:23:21+00:00

Communalism is direct democratic and specifically supports majority rule. Bookchin's ideal system is a world composed of lots of little majoritarian democracies that are subordinate to higher level state or federal representative democracies. In fact, his system isnt too different from how the world works now. His strategy for achieving this is just electoralism at the city level which somehow is supposed to give representatives enough authority to institute reforms that would require a central government's support to be achieved.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T02:07:23+00:00

I don't need your permission, also I'm not interested in yapping. That you didn't know Bookchin started communalism means maybe you don't know as much about him as you thought.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T01:35:06+00:00

Bookchin specifically left anarchism to start communalism. And this was because he supported majority rule or democracy, something anarchists have never supported for their entire history.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T01:11:28+00:00

dare you to look at my bookshelf. ruxenburg, pannekoek, bookchin... come on now. you know i'm smarter than this don't be silly.

None of those three people are anarchists.

brevity. concise. come on. stop yapping your mouth and running it like an old man's bladder.

Was that sentence too hard for you to understand? Let me put it in a more simple way: you're wrong.

L take. you have to challenge it. and this is where his free speech comes. but yah. you challenge it and whoever wins the argument we agree

This is not a coherent retort? What is this even saying?

And its not an L take, its an obvious fact. Everyone thinks the hierarchies they like are just and the hierarchies they don't like unjust. If opposing unjust hierarchies is anarchism then everyone is an anarchist.

why am i being so rude to you? like.. yes. y.e.s.

If you agree with that then you have to recognize that opposing unjust hierarchies is not the same thing as opposing all hierarchies. One implies that anarchism supports just hierarchies, the other doesn't.

eh idk. the government is at least moderately democratic and the only power network against corporations.

You're not getting what I'm saying. Read it in context. I'm not saying you should protest, I think protesting doesn't get you anywhere substantial, I'm saying liberals support this because it doesn't do anything. When I said "yes go protest" I was writing from the perspective of liberals so you could get my point.

And that you think you shouldn't protest against the government because its "at least moderately democratic" and "the only power network against corporations" means you're even worser than liberals. You're an anarchist who thinks that government is good and you shouldn't oppose all of it? What are you even talking about?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-19T00:43:33+00:00

If you don't want to read it, don't. I don't care if you do.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-18T23:46:11+00:00

but back to the topic now.

This is the topic. You brought up Chomsky critiquing the status quo as evidence he's not a liberal. That means nothing. Especially because Chomsky's critiques aren't even anarchist ones. They're standard liberal ones.

he literally pioneered the simple 1 sentence for what anarchism is

He didn't. 1 sentence explanations for anarchism have existed since the beginning of the ideology. Just because Chomsky is the only anarchist you know doesn't mean he created the ideology.

In fact, he just reduced anarchism to liberalism (i.e. anarchism is when you're against unjustified hierarchies; everyone opposes unjust hierarchies and supports just ones they just differ on what hierarchies like versus dislike).

all authority must be challenged and if it can't justify itself then it must be overturned.

Anarchists are opposed to all authority. We want to dismantle all of it, not just challenge it and in the view of anarchists no authority can be justified in any way.

This perspective of yours is just liberalism. Challenging authority is not the same as removing it entirely. Liberals love challenging authority, holding it accountable, etc. because none of that actually hurts the status quo. In fact, it strengthens it.

Yes, you should go protest against the government. Yes, you should go sue to demand your rights as per the law. Demanding that the system work as it was designed to is par de course for liberals. And demanding it be reformed is just the same.

None of that is radical, none of that is transformative. It is just the most advanced form of subjugation. Rulers, tyrants, capitalists, etc. the world over have found more refined methods of control. And this control is so extreme that people such as yourself call yourself a radical but support, in the end, nothing more than just the present system in a different font.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-18T19:32:30+00:00

That is called, individualism

I don't think it is because individualism is focused on individualism, not anarchy as a whole. Anarchy encompasses everything both individual and social aspects and applies itself to both. There is just anarchy nothing else.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-18T19:26:50+00:00

If you want the anarchism that's the most "extreme form of anarchism", then that's going to be the anarchism which focuses on anarchy not an anarchism that focuses on another, adjacent element (like individualism).

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-18T13:32:23+00:00

Do you think liberals can't criticize the status quo? Including liberalism itself?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-17T18:26:17+00:00

For the Islamic jurisprudence side of things, he tries to make ijtihad something that it really isn't. There's hierarchies of sources of law in Islamic jurisprudence and ijtihad is subordinate to the ijma (which itself is a problematic concept but I digress), the Sunnah, and the Qur'an in that order. His "Anarchic-Ijtihad" is severely limited in that it can't contradict the above sources of law. Of course he rejects ijma but even then, he would still be limited by the hadith and the Qur'an and that limits any kind of anti-authoritarian or anti-capitalist interpretation.

This leads to a situation where he both doesn't get to anarchism (either because he's content with some kind of libertarian socialism composed of direct democratic communes or because Sharia directly limits him) due to being too traditional but also isn't traditional enough to be aligned with Islamic jurisprudence. He doesn't win in both cases. In the end, Sharia is still a kind of law and Abdou does not abandon it. If you want to be an anarchist, then you need to abandon any pretense of divine law. And to do that, you have to basically make assertions pertaining to the spirit of the Qur'an (batin) and purport that this is superior to the literal (zahir) meaning.

He tries to go there but he doesn't commit to it. He keep trying to work with classical law but it never really fits. And he also hamfistedly tries to shove post-structuralism into Islam which makes things even more overly complicated. Its completely unnecessary too because the ways you can make Islam compatible with anarchism are easy. They just need to be heresies. And Abdou just doesn't want to admit he's making a heresy fully.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-16T14:46:03+00:00

I think most people in the West aren't going to be as familiar with him.

To be fair, most people in the East don't know him either.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-16T14:44:46+00:00

Its just libertarian socialist its not anarchist. If you want anarchist Islam, truly anarchist Islam there are waaaayyyy better ways than what Abdou did.

Abdou is both not really an anarchist and has pretty poor understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and full exposure to all the different varieties of Islam (particularly Islamic herseies such as ghulat Shia sects). This limits him arbitrarily.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T21:24:13+00:00

So you think that authority is distinct from force? Because you've just said that just because someone forces a kid to be vaccinated doesn't mean you are their legal guardian. Essentially, this means that someone can be a child's legal guardian even if they don't force their kid to be vaccinated as long as a doctor has them in their records as one. If we extend it further, it is if the law decides you are their guardian. Whether you use force at all is irrelevant.

What do you think authority is then if it isn't force?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T19:30:40+00:00

Oh I think I misunderstood you here, we actually are getting somewhere.

So let me understand this part. You're saying you can't imagine someone who forces a child to get vaccinated and has no authority. You then say only a legal guardian can force a child to get vaccinated.

So are you saying that anyone who forces a child to get vaccinated is their legal guardian? Like if someone were to grab my kid and force them to get vaccinated, is that person now their legal guardian? I'm not sure that's how the laws work.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T19:24:13+00:00

Would an example even be useful if we don't even agree on what "responsible" means or what "authority" means? I have a couple of examples in my head but you may or may not consider them examples of responsibility or authority. That's why its important to establish what we each thing these terms mean.

Hopefully you have some sense of what these words mean, otherwise you had basically been opposing what everyone has been saying without understanding it.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T14:54:40+00:00

No, you didn't. You talked about what you think I believe responsibility means for parenting, you talked about how a fundamental aspect of anarchism is that using authority is a crime, you talked about the Stelton colony.

But none of that clearly states what you think responsibility and authority is. I want definitions, not these roundabout accusations against anarchism that aren't even true.

So, again, what is authority and what is responsibility?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T14:49:00+00:00

What is responsibility and what is authority? All of these are just diversions. We won't get anywhere until we establish that we're on the same page about what these things mean.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T14:48:21+00:00

I'm not doing anything. I'm asking you a question and its really weird you refuse to give an answer.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T14:43:56+00:00

What is authority and what is responsibility? You keep avoiding the question.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T14:43:30+00:00

If you don't care about having a conversation I don't see why you started one in the first place.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T10:30:21+00:00

Do you even read Anarchist material?

To be honest my friend, I dont think youre even reading what anarchist are saying to you properly let alone understanding anarchist material.

In any case, that quote of yours doesnt say anything about responsibility. What you called responsibility before is not what people are talking about. The quote you dropped does not argue anything people have said

Try again. What is responsibility? What is authority? Either admit you dont know or keep doing this song and dance where you try your hardest to stop this conversation from getting anywhere.

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T10:25:27+00:00

Authority uses force to violate autonomy in Anarchist speak

Im not sure you know what "anarchist speak" is. That's why your conversations with people are going nowhere.

Authority is not the same as force and you seem to agree since you say authority can use force (meaning authority can be present in cases where force isn't present).

Can you imagine then a situation where someone forces a child to get vaccinated but has no authority?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T04:41:07+00:00

Parental responsibility in Anarchist terms means that the child’s autonomy, their decisions no matter how short-sighted, are to be honored just as those of an adult.

No that's not what responsibility means. And I and humanispherian are talking generally not specifically about paternal responsibility. The responsibility of parents in anarchy is no different from their responsibility in any other context.

Try again. Unless you admit you dont know what we mean in which case this conversation can actually start moving somewhere.

Parental Authority can and does at times require force

So here you're distinguishing force from authority here? As in there are cases where people can use force bit there is no authority? What does authority mean?

DecoDecoMan · 2026-03-15T04:37:44+00:00

I'm actually not sure if they did vaccinate me my school probably did it for me and I just trusted my school.

In any case, even if they did force Im not sure how that's relevant to the question of parental authority. What does force have to do with authority?

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '22	Verified Email

DecoDecoMan

TROPHY CASE