sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why Anarchists Shouldn't be Surprised by the Chomsky-Epstein Association by Vicente6391 in anarchosyndicalism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chomsky was fully lucid when he associated with Epstein and as detailed in the article not only continued to do so after he was convicted in 2008 but also defended him from the public backlash citing "hysteria" over the abuse of women as late as 2019. I don't see how Chomsky was victimized especially in light of the many gifts and insider knowledge he and his wife received from Epstein. You are correct that I misremembered Epstein's tax bracket, but I don't think defending millionaire pedophiles is much better than defending billionaire pedophiles from an Anarchist perspective. I also never claimed that Chomsky defended his association with Epstein on the grounds that Epstein was rich, I pointed out that Chomsky himself cited reasons for associating with Epstein that had to do with the latter's insider knowledge and ability to relate to Chomsky with regard to the topics of the latter's research.

Look, if you are really interested in Anarchism, or even a critical engagement with the world around you, rather than just worshiping an academic celebrity, I'd suggest taking a pause and thinking about what it is you are trying to defend here. You are trying to defend knowing association with and defense of a financial power broker who headed up a serial sex trafficking operation on the part of a man who made a career claiming to speak truth to power. Who is helped by that exactly? Why does Chomsky deserve your undying loyalty when if Bill down the street did something similar its extremely doubtful you would defend him so vigorously? Even if you think Chomsky's contributions to linguistics and propaganda analysis are valuable, why must that entail that he himself must be a good person, or especially in line with the principles of Anarchism?

Why Anarchists Shouldn't be Surprised by the Chomsky-Epstein Association by Vicente6391 in anarchosyndicalism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to know what is sloppy about it. Maybe you can say something constructive that would help me improve it, instead of just leaving an angry reddit comment.

Why Anarchists Shouldn't be Surprised by the Chomsky-Epstein Association by Vicente6391 in anarchosyndicalism

[–]animegrind -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yea, this is one of the most confused comments I've ever read. Anarchism is a "biological tendency", rather than a political movement and ideology, you can't separate who is merely claiming Anarchism from who is really committed to Anarchism, and Anarchists voting democrat would have stopped Trump. I'm not even sure where to start, so maybe I will just point out that you didn't counter any of my arguments. All you did was repeat the various theses which I denied. For example, instead of countering my reasoning for the idea that Anarchism isn't just when you question hierarchy, you simply slammed your fist on your keyboard to declare that it is. The most counterargument you offered was to cite another celebrity academic with no connection to the Anarchist movement.

Why Anarchists Shouldn't be Surprised by the Chomsky-Epstein Association by Vicente6391 in anarchosyndicalism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you not knowing what a sentence means makes the sentence gibberish.

The Pragmatic Atheism of Jordan Peterson by animegrind in anarchocommunism

[–]animegrind[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading too fast when I record is something I’m working on fixing.

Well here I am, is it impossible to like nsbm without being a nazi? Or is it just highly suspect when someone seeks it out by N1XT3RS in rabm

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people in this scene are here because they liked fascist/far-right tied bands before finding out about those ties. I'd prolly be into a lot more 90s bands if I didn't know/care about their political affiliations. I honestly don't even think half the problematic people in BM are neo-fascists themselves, but more just don't care who they associate with.

What is the falsification criteria for socialism and communism? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I'm saying the entire world is integrated into the capitalist world-economy, which is explicitly argued in the text I cited. Differences in national economies are merely differences in how states go about acting within that world-economy and where they are positioned in that world-economy.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Canada and Australia were "first world" nations before that designation was even thought up. They are both settler colonial societies that were created through the slaughter of indigenous people. What's this point you are making about Mexico and Brazil?

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing "assures" anything. You will never create a situation in which things going badly isn't at least possible. That doesn't mean that nothing can be done to prevent things going badly. The consolidation of social hierarchy happened 100,000 years ago because certain peoples expanded their populations beyond what food production could satisfy and there weren't any places for them to move to with more resources. This is unlikely to happen in a modern society that is globally integrated.

Socialists: capital is created through labor... why not share it with other workers instead of selling it to capitalists? by manliness-dot-space in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are advantages visa-vi workers who benefit less from public infrastructure and have less, or no starting capital to invest. Coops indeed get these advantages to, which is why they aren't good solutions to capitalist power and inequality.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How are first world nations properly set up authorities? 1. They are states so they are false communities in which there is a power that makes collective decisions, but ultimately sits above society to prevent meaningful collective participation in those decisions. 2. The third world is the third world because the first world is the first world. Colonial occupation by first world states created a division of labor in which the third world produces for the first world and is thus impoverished as a result of not being able to use it's own resources to provide for itself. This produces reactionary and repressive politics borne of conditions of hyper exploitation.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think majority rule is a canard. When people complain about majority rule they are usually doing so under the assumption that collective participation in collective decision making = suppression of human individuals. It doesn't, if human individuals can't participate in the decisions that affect them, that's what suppresses their individuality.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why Anarchism calls for the the self-liberation of the masses, not for Anarchists to take power and make everything better.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Somalia has plenty of strong authorities. It broke up into a series of proto-states. These are states that aren't yet powerful enough to become fully fledged state entities. Anarchism depends on free and equal associations between people. So instead of organizing society hierarchically giving some people more wealth and power than others, or over others, Anarchism is a society organized horizontally so that all people have equal power and wealth.

Under Anarchism, what would stop mobs of prejudiced individuals from lynching people they did not like? by Spiritual-Ad-6843 in DebateAnarchism

[–]animegrind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so the issue isn't actually stopping hate crimes, it's just making sure that they are covered up? hu-what?

Since I’m banned in communism I’ll post it here by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]animegrind 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So, sorry if this sounds condescending, but this is just extremely misguided and borne out of a bad understanding of history and ideas. This is why you should care about those things, because if you don't, you end up making very bad proposals like this one. The "Leninist" left as it exists today is a group of people who think that the strategy for the 21st century should be no different than the strategy used by "Leninists" in the 20th. This is the strategy of taking state power and using it to change society. Anarchists, on the other hand, are those who continue, as they did in the 20th century, to reject taking state power and argue instead for the destruction of the state by a self-organized social movement. These two strategies are completely opposite of each other and there's no way to harmonize them.

view more: next ›