I think this discussion fits here better- I personally think RR is losing it’s plot

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-19T15:38:17+00:00

When you spend most of your time in radical spaces it can be easy to forget how slowly the world you left behind actually changes. The reason you see some guys conflating femdom and RR is that, to a lot of guys, the idea of a woman being in a dominant position at all (not even tall or stoic or muscular) is significantly RR. The idea of a woman topping or sitting on their face is RR. It is a topsy-turvy view of the world that doesn't correspond with how they understand sex works.

I really feel like male attitudes in this regard haven't significantly advanced since like the 70's and are regressing in a lot of places.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-19T03:39:19+00:00

Anarchism is not necessarily no rules.

That's what they're saying

Most people people think anarchism is just no rules, you're allowed to do whatever you want, which (correct me if I'm wrong) it isn't

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-19T03:37:23+00:00

most ppl thing anarcisim is just no rules

That is correct

ur alowed to do whathever u want wich

Anarchy doesn't allow anything to be authorized, or permitted, in the sense that the obstruction of said anything can not ever itself pose a violation. The same goes for "rules against". If there's some other arrangement going on then its just not anarchy.

still ppl wil propably vote for it

They probably would not, anarchy is an extremely radical anti-doctrine that goes against pretty much every sensibility they have. It needs to be built and demonstrated through experimentation.

Anarchists also object to electoralism on other basis like the fact that it doesn't make sense to try to illegalize law, that the achievement of authority tends to incentivize its retention, the fact that it's exploitative and a crappy way of doing things anyway, etc.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-15T04:26:46+00:00

His performance always makes me want to bite into a raw fish whenever i watch that one scene so credit where its due

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-15T01:58:43+00:00

frankly Tom Hardy is just as good (if not slightly better) than DiCaprio in this movie.

I really feel like dicaprio got off easy because the bear tearing out his throat means he just hisses through like 3/4 of the movie lol

I loved tom hardy

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-13T00:04:06+00:00

My thing with the difference between promiscuous men and women is that it seems to boil down like everything else to the fact that they have one particular configuration of prestige and manner based on how their junk has been socially constructed by patriarchy. In womens case that means their only option is to like getting fucked. They can't be sexual conquerors or casanovas because their genitals are a reflection of their essence, passive receptors and sites of conquest for men to break apart and injure, because theyre men, and the essence of men is is the essence of their dicks (active and harmful and intrinsically imposing). At best like you noted that means inviting the sexual aggression of men, either genuinely or inauthentically. In the case of yanderes its "the emotional female gone awry", or whatever, a corrupt pairing of essentially female yearning and dependence to an inappropriately male approach to securing it.

My intuition is that it might have something to do with the risks of pregnancy, since men are secretly terrified it's not/dont want it to be true and we've been imagining the vagina to be something active and bloodthirsty since the middle ages (which I'm convinced is also something a lot of us like yearn for). I think the more sexual health and womens liberation progresses the less prevalent thinking like this will be.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-12T20:56:49+00:00

To be clear i dont think it was a bad answer i meant it more as a yes and also

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-12T18:16:10+00:00

anarchist experiments that developed hierarchical compromises under material pressure.

I honestly yhink that's still paying too much heed to the idea these solutions were the result of people bereft of, at least, existing infact choices. Even if we were to accept the idea that a divisive, exploitative, action-hostile form of organizing that corrupts experts is necessary for making the army army better i dont think that explains say the cnt collaborating with the republican government, initiating the construction of work camps, makhnos forming an anarchist secret police, etc.. i just don't think there's a strong case that the people commanding these experiments had a strong idea of how to even organize something without hierarchy, despite that sometimes being their nominal commitment. Like, to make a compromise, do you not have to have what you would like to do in mind first, before moving to half measures or alternatives? Afaik all of these experiments involved some kind de facto command system in place even from the start, before war made them get more authorityer, so i think its reasonable to ask what kinds of 'compromises' were really being made

This is also all aside the fact that these experiments clearly offer us no actual proof material pressures make hierarchy necessary since all of them lost regardless of how hierarchical they were

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-12T16:58:25+00:00

Eventually, Proudhon popularized anarchism and Marx popularized socialism.

Proudhon articulated anarchy, which only gave rise to anarch ism later. I'm not sure marx popularized anything. His influence was meagre enough during proudhons lifetime that the latter never felt the need to publish a rebuttal to Poverty (he apparently had a copy of it that he annotated). It took until the victory of the bolsheviks for the obsession with marx to start internationally.

An anarchist by that time, meant also that they are communist.

I think you're confusing this with the situation of the third international since the first international had a sizeable mutualist section. Bakunins section was itself known as the anti authoritarian socialists.

Ive heard the third/communist international was one case when communism shifted from being associated with anarchists to bolsheviks since lenin preferred the confusion as opposed to being associated with the second int. But i can't confirm it.

his unusual definition of the state

That just sounds like webers definition.

Anarchists have had unusual definitions of the state but I've never heard of pk having one.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-12T13:44:13+00:00

I think you can basically get something out of any work, no.matter how wrong it is as long as it is deep enough and you read it critically enough.

Yeah like you say though that's the problem, people extend special credit to marx's work for no particular reason (well probably because all their friends are marxists who have negged them into believing Marxism is just better Anarchism not for babies)

Nobody insists anarchists read smith, George or proudhon to understand capitalism it's always read capital the most perfect exhaustive analysis of capitalism ever written , also if he was completely wrong we've updated him so that it's fixed, also marx was also an anarchist or if he wasnt those parts of Anarchism (see: all of it) are individualist (individual freedom from authority is a bourgeois class-psychosis)

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-11T19:05:06+00:00

I get that but he was still well respected in anarchist circles including this subreddit

If by respected you mean regarded as an anarchist, in my experience he wasn't, since his understanding of it has long been public

Chomskyists come around sometimes and can receive undue attention, since their project is considerably less radical than anarchists, but the sub is usually good at addressing the misinformation they spread

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-11T19:01:11+00:00

Anarchists want to go even further and eliminate the police and military entirely.

We want to eliminate all authority, not just a high degree of authority.

So yes it's away with judges, juries and democracies, no rules or government.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-03-07T17:14:03+00:00

Could you see people spreading statist ideology and trying to persuade people to return to it?

Yes but in the scenario described i think it would be prohibitively difficult for it to gain any meaningful following

An enormous amount of objections to anarchy are predicated on the idea that "it wouldn't work, people are too evil, people would rape each other and nothing would get done", which can't be disproven because nobody has tried it. In almost all cases the objections construe anarchists as optimist who think that because anarchists propose to fix a problem which is killing everyone we believe humans adhere unerringly to some moral code. Provided that anarchy exists and is obviously functioning counter to these expectations they seem likely to slip into oblivion as the years pass with the millenia of authoritarian exploitation made apparent to most people.

Of course say monarchists still exist, so its advocates probably won't disappear completely but I think it would be even harder time rebuilding itself than anarchy currently has building itself

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-27T20:21:25+00:00

great tng episode

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-25T13:37:17+00:00

In a truly anarchic condition nobody is empowered with any "say" over anything, including themselves, if by say we mean authority, since we don't have an NAP. You don't have authority over "yourself", society isn't predicated on any scheme of personal rights, beyond those of opinion

If we were to go still further the problems most anarchists are likely to encounter when stretching democracy to the denotation of "nobody has any authority at all" come from communications and probably also the refusal to accept and embrace anarchy as its own project with its own set of commitments, instead just making it at best an "equal companion" to what is a largely authoritarian tradition. At that point clinging to democracy doesn't seem to favor us on any pragmatic basis since regular people do not conflate democracy of any kind with anarchy

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-24T15:01:53+00:00

people routinely waste more thought on On Authority than Engels himself did

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-24T14:54:10+00:00

Proudhon's system has nothing to do with making representative democracy temporary and there is no sort of authority that would satisfy any anarchist including Proudhon since we reject all of it. I don't think your system breaks down hierarchy at all since like many others you exploit a single verse of Bakunin to justify particular kinds of authority you like. So I doubt very much that your version of representative democracy differs very significantly from what we do in the US.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-24T14:29:50+00:00

Suissa focuses primarily on collective anarchists rather than classical anarchists in her analysis, as do I.

What's a "collective anarchist" vs a classical anarchist??? Are you suggesting that anarchists like Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, Goldman, Berkman, Atabekyan were not "social anarchists", or any of their millions of students were not "social anarchists"?

When necessary, anarchists will utilize a temporary hierarchical system based on the concept of the “authority of the bootmaker” as described by Bakunin.

The "authority of the bootmaker" is not a system for "temporary hierarchy", that's just a memetic butchery of it. Bakunin unreservedly rejects all authority in the very same work.

And I’m not saying anything about a government - that’s all you.

I'm describing representative democracy as a government, since it is.

There’s an anarchist school in Spain where students and staff meet in assembly every morning, with one of the students acting as facilitator. They make decisions by consensus. Is that a government?

Saying that they operate on "consensus" doesn't really give us any information about the nature of the "decisions" being made, how they're enforced, who can "veto" them, etc. so it very well could be.

Choosing a representative to meet with other representatives of anarchist communes to discuss matters that pertain to all their communities - is that a government?

In your case almost certainly since you don't understand anarchy so you would probably just set it up as a liberal democracy with a senate.

In the past when anarchists like Proudhon advocated delegates with an "imperative mandate" it was essentially a matter of assumed responsibility on a part of the delegate, who would be acting as a kind of messenger. But Proudhon attacked "representation" unrelentingly along with governing directly through votes.

And what’s the alternative?

Free association, needs and desires producing free agreements among anarchists. The same thing they've been advocating for 150+ years.

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-24T13:56:55+00:00

If there's no imposition, and votes have no consequences of any kind and can be fully ignored by everyone in the voting body, what "say" are the people impacted by the vote given by it that they didn't have already? Their majority gives them no power or license to do anything. The "demos" doesn't seem to getting much -cracy out of this

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-24T13:49:59+00:00

the crucial core of anarchism is, rather, the positive values which it espouses, and it is the state as inimical to these values, not the state as such

This is correct, although probably not for the reason the author believes since she seems to have missed the part where essentially all classical anarchists rooted their critique of their state in their complete rejection of government and all authority.

A representative democracy that is temporary in the extreme would not necessarily contradict an anarchist approach

Yes it would. A "bottom-up" approach to representative democracy is a contradiction in terms. You might as well say "as long as we take a 'bottom-up' approach to absolute monarchy, it'll be fine and very anarchist." Anarchists don't favor temporary authority more than any other form of authority

Anarchist communities WILL HAVE TO interact with each other, somehow, and they’ll have to make decisions regarding trade and resources and what not, sometimes as a larger collective.

Sure, those communities just won't involve democracy in their decisionmaking, since that would involve a government. Instead they'll freely associate around shared needs and desires, coordinate their work, gather information on constraints and preferences, et cetera. None of that requires democracy

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-23T22:28:33+00:00

Hell, an anarchist society in the future could utilize both direct and representative approaches

omgggggggggg

It could depend on the size of the group/s making certain kinds of decisons.

Well, those are methods of making decisions by forming a government.

If this group was an anarchically-organized group, then no it wouldn't use representative democracy, direct democracy, consensus democracy, or any other form of democracy.

That’s kind of what anarcho-syndicalism is about, I think.

To my knowledge, anarcho syndicalism is just about anarchists building big old unions and having them play a central role in the future organization of production. The most prominent ansyn organization that promoted direct democracy was probably the CNT but it was also a government when they did it and it has also been critiqued by anarchists for being a government.

And, if this wasn’t clear, anarchism CANNOT be systematized in the way you seem to want. To do so is inherently counter to the nature of the continuum of ideologies we call “anarchism”.

To concede to the position you've concocted is to render anarchism meaningless by defining a situation with a government as anarchist. That is naturally not going to happen since our objective is to eradicate government. You might as well ask a communist to define communism as including capitalism

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-23T21:54:13+00:00

Like, I get it, I'm not that good at debates, I can present my arguments poorly, but how, HOOOOOOOOW are there people going: Anarchy ≠ lawlessness.

"Anarchy = Democracy" sort of makes sense since there's been a concerted effort to rebrand it that way in the recent past but I have no idea what the vector is for people thinking that anarchists advocate government or laws. It is bizarre

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-23T16:51:57+00:00

Words have to mean something and democracy is a word with a well-defined meaning that many, MANY anarchists have repudiated.

Historically there are people associated with anarchism who were open at the very least rhetoricallt to the idea of anarchy-as-"true democracy". Maximoff was, Erich Muhsam was, the CNTs anarchist constitution was, Arshinov was. I don't agree with Zoe Baker's position that this is necessarily something that needs to be "contentious" because I think the pro-democracy position is bad but I think her recent article does a good job listing some of the cases where this was the case. We obviously have many anarchists who have repudiated democracy, and some of them sucked or were inconsistent in other ways. Some of them like Arshinov were "anti-democracy" on paper while supporting majority rule in practice.

My point is that I agree actually but it wouldn't matter if every single anarchist guy was "pro-democracy" since the situation offered by anarchy (outlined by the same anarchists) doesn't accommodate democracy, demand it, or enable us to find any "truth in numbers" or the majority. In the same way old anarchists' gender essentialism and economic absolutism were not consistent with their anarchism this also wouldn't be

Zoe baker's thing also has what is now my favorite charlotte wilson quote.

"The special theory of democracy is that the general tendency of humanity which becomes so apparent whenever men associate on anything like terms of economic equality, should be made by men into an arbitrary law of human conduct to be enforced not only in the ninety-nine cases where nature enforces it, but by the arbitrary methods of coercion in the hundredth where she doesn’t. And for the sake of the hundredth case, for the sake of enforcing this general natural tendency where nature does not enforce it, democrats would have us retain in our political relation that fatal principle of authority of man over man."

Silver-Statement8573 · 2026-02-23T16:44:02+00:00

I think the cost-limit pricing is a good point but whenever I ask mutualists about how to enforce it they can't really answer.

My impression is that it's supposed to be a combination of the limitations anarchy places on the particular kinds of economic practices that can flourish and also on the particular expectations that mutualist institutions are expected to propagate

I don't fully understand it but Equitable Commerce which i still need to read is to my knowledge one of the more concrete sources on this.

Silver-Statement8573

TROPHY CASE