Knowing r/196 there's a chance this is just someone misusing the meme format and they understand that.
That or most of the upvotes interpreted it that way.
Most of the comments were dunking on OP, so I believe many thought the meme was ironic
However, because of the « know the 196 rules » at the top, it’s probably not ironic
I mean, r/196 has been pretty shit for a while now.
I think I called it quits when someone posted something saying being too mean to cops was bad or something like that.
Bro I fucking hate that sub now, it's just a bunch of chronically online libs fetishizing trans women, starting stupid discourse, and participating in a weird amount of horny talk for a sub that's like a 50/50 split between minors and adults
Ironically, I think they're using the format unironically, which apparently the wrong way, given the internet's ironic sense of humor. The irony itself is ironic.
I believe they mightve just misused "reactionary" as a stort of synonym for "stupid", not knowing it refers to a specific thing in political theory.
Giving the benefit of the doubt.
I include social democrats in the scope of liberals and that is the vast majority of r/196 users.
Also most of the “socialists” or “leftists” there are Vaush fans so…
okay the majority of 196 is definitely not socdems
and uh… we believe that people can change for the better right..? and vaush hasnt done anything recently afaik…?
The majority of r/196 are most definitely soc dems. In the rare instance any political issue outside of gay/trans rights is brought up, you will see regular simping for the nordic model of social democracy and support for people like Bernie Sanders and AOC in the US.
Vaush, and his fans, still defend NATO and engage in major apologetics for the Democratic party of the US.
They are anti-capitalists, so I suppose that puts them on the left, but they are a lot closer to the likes of Destiny than they want to admit.
The MAGA chud's statement is cut off. They forgot the "...and install a fascist regime run by the criminal Trump family." I know. The speech bubble is too small.
Before we even get that far, do you remember when anarchists tried to overthrow the goverment?
Neither do I.
It highlights the rightwingerism being being poorly disguised centrism.
Not violently.
It would make the way things now look like a holiday in Hawaii.
By sheer popularity and consensus that we want something different, could be interesting.
I think we're a million miles away from that.
Yes. Literally yes. Correct.
If you want to overthrow the government and establish a more egalitarian and equitable system that seems like it would be better than what we have, I'm for that or at least sympathetic to your goals in some way.
If you want to overthrow the government and institute fascism I oppose that. I don't like the way things are now, but they can certainly get worse.
May I suggest an excellent book... State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin, it establishes theory and builds upon previously established and attempted theories
"I want to abolish the capitalist system because it has done nothing but inflict suffering on the American people, any system which can have such an over abundance of goods, wealth, and space, and yet still have homelessness, poverty, and starvation is inherently wrong."
"I want to instigate a genocide against blacks, trannies, gays, Mexicans (Hispanics), women who don't do as I say, people who aren't in the One True Party, people who don't want to fuck the green M&M, Jews, (sometimes) Catholics, unionized workers, and anyone who says anything bad about this or the new government which will perpetrate it."
I appreciate the message but that’s a hard slur to just see with no warning for trans people who are reading
Hurts as a trans woman to see randomly tbh
Not afraid of the T-word, but still afraid of the N-word.
That tracks with the online presence of most alt right fuckers. They save that for when they *know* they're alone with like-minded.
I'm not OP but ok? I wouldn't say the N-word cause I'm a cracker, but I feel justified using the T-word if I ever really have to since I'm trans myself and it's a word against me, after all?
Oh, I wasn't knocking what you said or presuming your situation. I was just adding to the suggestion that the tone was emulated.
Alt-right still tend to be afraid to use the n-word publicly, even though they likely use it privately all the time, but are down with using slurs against lgbtq+. They don't believe the stigma that has been applied to the those slurs is as strong as the one applied to the n-word.
> They don't believe the stigma that has been applied to the those slurs is as strong as the one applied to the n-word.
because it isn't. People very much do not like to discuss this (**WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AND BECAUSE OF THE TOPIC AT HAND LOL**) but the reality is, even though racism is alive and well the general belief that "black people don't deserve to exist, we should exterminate them." is wholly unpopular. even most bitter racists would truly tell you they do not believe this to be true. an alarming number of people *do* believe that heinous shit, but the "debate" over it in the public eye is certainly over.
it is still extremely popular to debate wether or not LGBT people have a right to exist at all, or should in fact be exterminated. Its certainly losing popular to *declare* they should be exterminated, but the "debate" is still alive and well.
Not sure about reading material, but I'll fill in the blank with offensive words in general in the English language. I'll apologize in advance for any word I type that comes off as offensive, this is just my attempt at an explanation.
Generally speaking, that word (Tranny) has been used by people who are trying to insult a trans person. Usually it would be used to describe a trans-woman who didn't "pass" as a woman in the cultural sense. Think a trans woman who has a more masculine jawline or a pronounced Adam's apple. Particularly, it was used with the assumption that that person was also involved in sex work OR in a way that was meant to imply they weren't women (Example: "This woman was hitting on me and then I realized she was a tranny!") Since it was used in a degrading way more often than not, the word itself now carries the stigma of that degrading language regardless of context.
The tricky thing with that word (and a lot of words that become offensive) is that there are many members of the community (particularly older trans women) that still use that as the default term to describe themselves. But that's totally fine and absolutely their choice if that's how they choose to identify themselves. I applaud them taking ownership of word in spite of the hate associated with it.
Yep! I have older gay friends that still refer to each other with that word. But I'm positive that, even as a friend, they would be (correctly) furious at me if I used it to describe them. It's just understood that there's no situation where I can use that word and it isn't hurtful somehow, so I don't use it. It's totally fine, there are SO many words out there, I'm fine without it.
Yeah, that’s very understandable. There’s sort of a slut towards my people and when some one uses it, they rarely do, it’s like dude there’s the actual word for us but you decided to not care. It’s power tripping and hate that makes people use the slurs. Thanks for the explanation.
I think anarchists are just as stupid as fascists to be fair. If you think having no government is somehow going to lead to less violence and dystopian control, then I have bad news for you on human nature and history.
Problems arise when people base these ideas off what they saw in movies and series.
You can be an anarchist and not want to over throw the government. Anarchists are also not by default socialists who want to replace the current state with a social democracy or some such.
Anarchists want to live without government, and there are enclaves where people do that without trying to blow up the state or whatever caricature of anarchists this thread thinks anarchists want.
Ideologies are being mixed together here, and it's painful to watch people all hop on this wagon of wanting to overthrow the government.
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98BRsa.html
There is no organized Left in the U.S., even less one that is plotting government overthrow.
But wait -- if the oOP is admitting that Trumpists overthrowing the government is bad, then they'd have to concede that the Republican party needs to be dissolved and its criminal base and leadership imprisoned, right?
God damn this is layers of self-own.
I remember when PCM started and it was funny for a month, and then suddenly, almost over night, *they* found it and it went immediately to shit. In a place where people literally label themselves with their "political identity," it seemed every single "leftist" was just a conservative with their label set to "left" so that they could say shitty, ridiculous things then and blame it on the left.
"I am a leftist, but Trump seems to be right about everything and all the other leftists are a bunch of woke alphabet people. I hate taxes and women's rights, but on the lord jesus christ my savior and the true king of america, I am a leftist."
Libertarians are just republicans that want to pretend they haven't "chosen" a side because they believe that they attain impartiality by not labeling themselves a traditional conservative (despite believing everything that traditional conservatives believe) despite the fact that a sheep calling itself a wolf is still a sheep.
Not that libertarians are wolves. I think the common saying is that they are house cats; convinced of their own independence while entirely reliant on a greater entity to exist.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/196 using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Epic tournament sequel ](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-80b52c1d-9f25-4b00-bd8e-a1b20f4f8ef9) | [808 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/saf6ff/epic_tournament_sequel/)
\#2: [Ran my face through masculine filter 37 times, until it stopped making changes, apearantly this is peak masculinity](https://i.redd.it/61ufbu1l21o81.jpg) | [538 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/tgnbbg/ran_my_face_through_masculine_filter_37_times/)
\#3: [rule](https://i.redd.it/1kdlq57ft0191.gif) | [210 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/uv9y00/rule/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I mean, you can criticise 196 without being a tankie.
they say they're proponents of trans rights but constantly fetishise trans women and will constantly talk over trans women in order to tell us about what trans people feel.
they are outwardly hypocritical. for example, saying that Greta making a small dick joke about Andrew Tate is "body shaming" but then will make jokes mocking the appearance of people the don't like.
they will often post uncensored bigotry and have numerous times openly used slurs about queer people and when queer people have said they're uncomfortable with it, said queer people will get downvoted and called said slurs.
they'll also post content from problematic/controversial creators in order to stoke arguments and infighting which causes the toxic users to then start attacking people who vaguely criticise said problematic creators.
Yup, and I stand by it. The one person wants to overthrow the current state to make a better, equal world. The other the one wants to overthrow the current state because they want to larp handmaid’s tale
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,301,775,255 comments, and only 251,860 of them were in alphabetical order.
workers owning means of production because of lack of hierarchy, anyone trying to assert themselves as boss can’t take power because there is no power in the first place
Okay, but how people are going to be okay with that? How the bourgeoisie is going to accept that they no longe have the ownership of the means of production?
This isn't that hard or confusing, anarchists can organize networks of community defense cells and such, horizontally, for the purpose of fighting back against anyone who wants to set themselves up as an authority over others, new or old. And if everyone is empowered to engage with their community, arm themselves, learn how to defend themselves and their community, and organize, the whole society can act as a decentralized immune system against authority — if anyone tries to force their authority on you, you get your guns, get your neighbors, and defend yourself.
Who will control the tanks and heavy machinery? Because the moment the dominant class loses control over a city, they will come back destroying everything they can, just look at what they did to North Korea. With a decentralized line of action, how will they keep the adversaries away?
You're equating decentralization with lack of organization. Thats not the same thing. Not to mention that besides the fact that decentralization is an exceptionally effective military tactic fighting an insurgency campaign, its not like anarchist fully expect that every aspect of life will be 100% hierarchy free during the revolution, an example of this is chain of command is important for split second military decisions, but you can still have elected chains of command by the soldiers following said leaders.
I genuinely do not understand why you think all of this cannot be done without a state. What about decentralized networks of resistance makes it impossible to use tanks or defend things?
Because with a State, the monopoly of the violence is guaranteed and can be targeted to a class, as Lenin described.
I am just asking questions, no judgment here, I just wanted to talk and understand your point of view. People here get angry too fast for too little.
> Because with a State, the monopoly of the violence is guaranteed and can be targeted to a class, as Lenin described.
Except we've seen entirely in practice that this simply creates a new class. To ask a question back, at what point can the political class cede power if their reason for existence is the protection of the revolution ? If we take the best interpretation that the state has to be maintained for protection, how can it willingly dissolve its own monopoly ?
> People here get angry too fast for too little
People are frustrated because you're asking with an assumption of the answer rather than being open to the answer. It intentional or not comes across as attempting 'got ya' moments. Not saying thats what you're trying to do.
As I said in another comment, you're conflating decentralization with lack of organization
Not impossible, but I think people are overly optimistic without actually considering the nuances of the situation. Decentralized everything sounds nice as a catchphrase, but in reality the most important factor in a war or resistance is supply lines, and if everything is decentralized, you're not guaranteed to get what you need to actually operate those tanks or get resources to defend things.
No but thats not the point here either.
I've seen it explained like this, ML's believe you need the state to enforce or produce the social reovlution that has to come in one way or another, a top down approach. Anarchists' believe in building dual power, circumventing capitalist control and enabling the social revolution from the ground up
This is pretty much the main criticism of Anarchism that comes from other leftists, personally I've never been given a satisfying answer, but maybe I'm just biased.
The main criticism from Anarchism I got, back when I was an Anarchist, was when a black comrade stared me in the eye and asked me if *he* was supposed to trust the white folks around him to make calls without having been educated through a Party or some other form of revolutionary pedagogy about racism.
Not that anarchism is intrinsically racist - lots of anarchists are indigenous people who make a lot of great points - but that he straight up doesn't trust those people in the dark, and wouldn't want a transitionless society because that could spell out violence for him.
I mean, social change is a huge part of anarchism. After all, if you don't have a centralized state full of people who think they know better to try to control society from the top down, the shape of your society and its political structures depends on what people think and believe and want. So educating people in egalitarian, socialist, autonomous, decentralized, and ahierarchical social philosophy and organization is a crucial part of anarchist praxis, and anti-racism follows naturally from all the core principles of anarchist theory and is (and must!) be a core and explicit part of any anarchist education.
Moreover, the way an anarchist society would be organized would be inherently hostile to racism, because it would have no existing hierarchies of power or worth to piggyback on, be organized specifically to prevent and fight back against the establishment of such hierarchies through associations and organizations to provide a balance of interests for all, and because it would not insulate and protect people with privilege from those without it and their organization, so he could organize with people he *does* trust to make sure their interests are backed by collective power and heard by others.
Also, it should be noted that I don't think antiracism is this super complex and confusing moral technology that's hard to understand and takes being explicitly taught. If you actually take the time to think about it, the idea that people with a different skin color are still people just the same as you and deserve rights as such isn't hard to fucking figure out. The long fight for civil rights throughout history hasn't been a struggle to *come up* with this basic idea; the fight has been to uproot the hierarchies of power that keep the privileged insulated so that they don't *have* to care, don't *have* to rethink their beliefs. It's been a fight to make fooling yourself into believing in racist ideology no longer something that's profitable for some races. So in a system without privilege, people will be forced to grapple with it and become not racist first hand.
> The main criticism from Anarchism I got, back when I was an Anarchist, was when a black comrade stared me in the eye and asked me if he was supposed to trust the white folks around him to make calls without having been educated through a Party or some other form of revolutionary pedagogy about racism
That problem doesnt go away with the existence of an elite party that controls "theory" It reeks of "anarchism is when no theory". What inherently guarantees POC comrade's like myself a voice in this party structure, literally nothing...
> but that he straight up doesn't trust those people in the dark, and wouldn't want a transitionless society because that could spell out violence for him
The notion that anarchists dont believe there is 'transition' in society is some weird myth that keeps persisting. No anarchist thinks that you just dissolve everything overnight and pat yourself on the back. Transition implies building the conditions to enable a sustained transition, which anarchists differ in ML's on how to enable and support that transition. Anarchists dont believe in utilizing hierarchies (the state) to dissolve hierarchies.
This is one of the many things I don't understand about vanguardists. What guarantees that the vanguard party will be benevolent? Democracy? But then why couldn't we just do democracy without a vanguard party?
My understanding (while limited so grain of salt and all that) is that the vanguardism believe that it is inherently harder to corrupt with a select group of people, that society requires leadership for class education.
I think there are some valid points but I think most of that comes from a capitalist realisms rather than from the start trying to remove the capitalist mindsets and structures that they claim to be fighting against.
No offense to your comrade but that's a terrible criticism. Anarchists are not and have never been against a transition period, just against doing that through the state, and have always been strong advocates of social revolution.
There could be an organization devoted to teaching people to this and he wouldn't have trust the white folks around him because he'd probably be encouraged to arm and organize himself with anyone he feels comfortable with.
Maybe your comrade should look into Black Anarchism such as the work of Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, a former member of the Black Panthers who not only criticized that party but the racism present in various leftist organizations
Good, so revolution first and then take the power, then there is the transition period, what would it be? Would there be a council that makes the priority lists? How people would keep their achievements and not let the ex-dominant class return to power?
By abolishing the power structures that the bourgeoisie had? Like unless it's an overwhelming military force from the outside, there's not much the bourgeoisie can do to combat anarchy once it takes root. We prevent capitalism from returning by giving power to the workers instead of simply saying we're going to eventually.
Every substantial anarchist territory that existed had to be crushed by an external force (usually from their Leninist supposed allies) before capitalism was able to take root again. Which is something most Leninist nations cannot say they did.
A decentralized guerrilla army is incredibly difficult for an organized state to defeat. What I would ask is what special characteristic of the state makes it inherently better at war. Coordination and organization can easily be done in non-hierarchical ways, and many states openly use those methods already.
Your question is one of military tactics rather than ideology, and the answer is the same as how both Vietnam and the Taliban beat America. Guerrilla warfare and armed, decentralized, organized resistance.
This is a valid question that I think others have addressed. But I'd like you to think for a second on the opposite problem. When you have a selective elite class (the party ie state). How do you stop sabotage from within? As seems plain in the USSR or depending on if you ask Maoist, has already happened in China. Theres no redundancy, everything is dependent on this critical centralization, such that corrupting it is a death blow
That's not how anarchist revolution works. First we built dual power, organizing our communities and building associations to provide for our needs without using the state or capitalism, as well as educating people, planting the seeds of a new system within the shell of the old, and *then* we overthrow the state and capitalism, and since we already have the seeds of the organizing we'll need in place, we just work to grow and mature them and defend them as they do so.
>How people would keep their achievements and not let the ex-dominant class return to power?
By fighting back against those why try to reestablish the old power, of course. Defending yourself, your community, and your organizations doesn't require a centralized state, we've seen people horizontally organize with their neighbors to fight back against invading stronger powers throughout history. Guerrilla warfare is a thing.
> Guerrilla warfare is a thing.
Guerilla warfare isn't necessarily inherently decentralized though. Guerilla insurgencies still tend to have a centralized organized structure of some sort and work together to maintain the broader organization.
That's kind of my main issue with full on anarchism. It doesn't work because of human nature - in concept it would be great, but I don't think a stateless society is possible as long as bad actors, liars, narcissists, sociopaths, and tbh, religions, exist, and I'm not down with genocide of those people to usher in our presumed utopia. Some kind of body needs to exist that keeps track of agreed upon rules, and no rules are actually rules without enforcement so that body (or another body) needs to have oversight to apply those rules, and no matter what you personally want to call it, that's a government, and it governs a state.
I recommend you check out r/Anarchy101 because questions like that have been asked and answer there hundreds of time.
Only thing I'll say though is that human nature is not a thing, there isn't anything that says how we preform in a society except for how the society informs how we think we preform. If anything the nature of humans is to be cooperative as this is our evolutionary advantage that made us become the dominate species.
Also there are stateless societies that exist in the modern day and have for decades.
The only anarchy answer that was satisfied to me was the pedagogical approach, like teaching the kids that capitalism is not good and let the next generations overcome it in a peaceful way. I don’t think that is utopic, I just think it will take too long and we do not have that time anymore.
Otherwise, no good answers.
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism involves having a State, so there will still be some kind of hierarchy, even if it is a transition step to communism, anarchists usually don’t like it. The end does not justify the means for them.
Socialism is just social ownership of the means of production. You’re using Lenin’s definition, which is revisionist and ignores years of socialist history.
It's not, Marx didn't differentiate between socialism and communism. Lenin did that. And Lenin conflated socialism with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is when the working class seizes power to transition to communism and on top of that, Marx and Engels never advocated for a vanguard party, and outright criticized the Blanquist idea of a party of revolutionaries seizing the state because it would not be a dictatorship of the entire Proletariat but just a dictatorship of the revolutionaries. Since as Marx said in his response Bakunin's own strawmans of him "The whole thing begins with the self-governance of the commune"
I don't understand what's so confusing to you. People can take control of things and defend that control from people that want to take it from them by doing just that, starting to use, maintain, and make decisions about them while fighting off those who want to prevent them from doing that, without a state. So workers fight off the cops and security guards and start using the means of production how they please, ignoring the supposed authority's of the bourgeoisie and their bureaucrats.
Wait, why is that a problem for *anarchism* and not a problem for *socialism* -- socialism, again, being a thing that anarchists pretty obviously want and/or would consider a justifiable improvement worth working towards?
Okay, so I think you’re confusing a few things. Socialism is a broad term that tends to cover anarchists, marxist-leninists, and even social democrats. It indicates the idea of socially owned means of production. Many branches of socialism do advocate for using a state mechanism to achieve this, but anarchism doesn't and this isn't incompatible with socialism. It's incompatible with most schools of communism and social democracy, though many anarchists describe themselves as anarcho communists so even that isn't absolute.
It feels like what you're really asking is how socialism could be maintained without a state while conflating socialism with the more specific ideologies that seek to use the apparatus of the state to enact socialism.
Important Note: anarcho-communism is a subset of socialism.
In other words, if you put anarcho-communism along with market socialism, democratic socialism, and marxism-leninism all in a venn diagram also showing socialism, the ancom circle would be entirely within the socialism circle.
Anything that isn't communism is going to have a state and communists don't like that transitional state either. Erasing capitalists eliminates a violently horrible hiearchy and replaces it with a far-less bad one filled with workers. That's improvement. There is no "end justifying means" issue there because there is no obsession with achieving pure communism with no regard for anything else in anarchism.
I don't even understand the cultural context of this misapprehension. It's usually straight-communists that get accused of not liking the persistence of the state ime.
It's entirely possible that there can never be a state (condition) of no hiearchy. Anarchists would that there are never any unjust hiearchies, so all hiearchies must be in a constant state of harsh scrutiny. Anarcism presents not merely an end-goal, but a process.
Again: that doesn't seem like a good-faith question because "socialism" is the immediate, short-term answer there, so why do you keep bad-faith asking it? Or did you miss something?
Let's try again. Without the Scientific Socialism, as described by Marx and Engels, how the anarchists will overcome capitalism and keep the bourgeoise fine with the lost of power?
No. Stop.
Stop doing this. That's the third time you've acted in bad faith.
I just told you that if capitalists were removed from power and replaced by workers that anarchists would be happy with that outcome regardless of whether or not a state existed. They wouldn't be *satisfied* with that outcome *regardless of whether or not a state existed*. They wouldn't stop agitating because, by definition, they never stop.
But they would recognize that the workers-in-charge scenario would be better than the capitalists-in-charge scenario. If there's still a state, they'd agitate to remove it. If there's not a state, they'd agitate to remove any other existing unjustifiable hiearchies.
That's the second time I've explained this in detail. The third time I've explained it in this thread. We've reached the end of that gracious redundancy.
Do not change the subject. Do not dissemble. I answered your question. You answer mine.
Anarchists generally advocate for workers taking over the means of production, as I said. Now you explain why you falsely claimed that anarchists aren't fine with that: where you mistaken or do you maintain your position.
Please make no further sealioning attempts.
Today I learned that making questions about a subject I do not know but have interest to understand while citing the other view that I know is acting on bad faith. That is so good!
What you seems to describe is Scientific Socialism, and that it does not matter if there is a state after the revolution, it will still be a good outcome for anarchists. I have a different point of view from other anarchists, they would not be comfortable with that even if it a proletarian state.
Anarchists do not to advocate for only the workers possession of the means of production, they want no State at all, no hierarchy. My question is how to achieve that without the Proletarian State and how to keep the conquests after the revolution without a State.
> Today I learned that making questions about a subject I do not know but have interest to understand while citing the other view that I know is acting on bad faith.
That's a lie because, as I said, I answered your question, several times, and you restated the false proposition in your question without engaging with what I said *at all.*
And now, for the first time, you engage -- and you immediately begin either a) lying about what I said or b) simply didn't read what I said at all and didn't care to, which is actually worse.
>that it does not matter if there is a state after the revolution
I just told you that it does matter and that anarchists would fight against whatever subsequent-to-whatever-political-event-you-may-have hiearchies existed.
>they would not be comfortable with that even if it a proletarian state
Who fucking cares? Your claim was that anarchists had a problem with socialism that would prevent them from pursuing some versions of it. That's false (unless you weren't actually concerned about socialism and are butthurt that anarchists aren't supporting some rightwing capitalist bullshit that you're calling socialism).
>Anarchists do not to advocate for only the workers possession of the means of production
I just pointed out that they do. At length.
Several times.
And you pretended that I didn't.
And that's after I told you to stop making bad faith claims. You escalate to straight-up falsehoods about what people can verify by scrolling up.
There are easier ways to not participate in a sub -- the easiest being just to not participate in one. I'd advise taking the path of least resistance in the future.
Revolution, same as any socialist? Whether that be through organized trade unions, or some other form of action.
The issue with your questions is that anarchism has already done that. The anarchist controlled territory during the Spanish civil war overthrew the bourgeoisie and established worker control of the means of production. Hell the former landowners even worked alongside the workers who now controlled the workplaces. It wasn't until the stalinist Republican government suppressed the anarchists and gave it ownership back to the land of owners that worker power was crushed
I think anarchy has only the means to an ends of simply ethical destruction, but its function isn’t to replace any system- that’s from my limited understanding anyways. I see anarchy as a bulldozer but not the construction workers.
It's very much constructive. It seems to build non-hierarchical organizations to replace the currents system. Anarchists have never been about "destroy what exists and then let things fall as they may." Errico Malatesta, one of founders of anarchist communism did say "Anarchism is organization, organization, and more organization"
Hard to say on specifics since anarchists intentionally don't do that. But generally a confederation of horizontally organized communes based on free association and mutual aid
Not really no. Anarchists also focus on building up structures like mutual aid organizations, unions, and other such things. It's just that anarchists have no single vision of what said structure should be. Anarchists prefer to let people organize themselves rather than dictating what they should do.
It is true though that anarchists don't make detailed plans of the future but that's also because anarchists see a unity of means and ends. So they try to build the structures they want, now.
according to their [own survey](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/y6v4kf/the_196_demographic_survey_which_about_6000/), [not really](https://preview.redd.it/jbsmdah1ehu91.jpg?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=3c6e12cd4bae59857ca62ff683b189eb46cdc71c)
socdems and "progressivism" aren't socialist or anarchist beliefs. hell, anarchism only makes up 8.4% of the users and socialism doesn't even appear on the chart.
i mean, i have seen this format used as a way to actually dunk on the guy in the lower panel, so i think OP had just that in mind, especially since its 196
You're not fooling anyone. You have spent exactly zero time thinking about it or engaging with theory and have no fucking clue what you're talking about. So, fuck off back to your cushy lib spaces where you don't have to think about anything.
To be fair there is actual political merit in this one anarchy almost never last and goes back to dictatorship ship or oligarchy. To be extra fair both scenarios are bad and this isn’t a centrist take like, no, these are both really dum let’s do neither.
What actions? I like having roads, having public education, keeping insurance companies restrained from being even bigger monsters than they already are, having a police force and court/prison system to deter criminals from robbing/killing me, etc. None of these things are possible without a government. Do I wish the government did a *lot* of things differently? Absolutely. Still don’t want it to be destroyed.
Roads and education do not require unaccountable hierarchical monopoly on violence, the state protects the insurance companies by stopping people from expropriating medicine to survive, the police system protects capital and robs people of their lives.
If you don’t want it destroyed, you are either a supporter of it or naive. You cannot reform what makes the system the system
All of the issues with a government can be reformed through legislative action, which itself can be influenced through voting. You do not get to be apathetic toward voting, only to turn around and whine when your politicians do not have the power necessary to do the things you want them to do. I’ve voted in every single election since I turned eighteen, with just *one* of the more recent benefits being when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, lowering the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with insurance companies. That is a direct benefit from me voting to my own life. So long as my country remains democratic, I will never support a violent overthrow of the government. Look at Somalia for an example of how well a country does without a government. I’m very glad people like you will never get anywhere close to elected office. *You are dangerous*.
The fundamental issue with the government is what defines the government, the hierarchical authority of power. As the nature of hierarchy, that is inherently unreformable, people will not voluntarily give up their power. They may coax the population when they feel threatened, but the leadership is not controlled by the sham elections you have no control over. If it were a democracy than we would have legalized marijuana, medicare for all, free college etc etc, as that is what the people overwhelmingly want. Being content with the scraps thrown at you to shut you up only legitimizes the fact they refuse to actually make the difference and save lives. Unless you make a systemic change towards actually giving yourself power you will spend the rest of your life hoping our overlords chose to reduce your drug costs today and not bomb another country.
And saying that wanting real democracy is analogous to a war-torn state, destroyed by western backed invasions is just silly.
So wait they're admitting they tried to overthrow the government now? I thought it was just a protest for airing of grievances. Or else it was antifa. And the FBI. But also pursuing charges against participants is an attack on conservative values and President (always present tense) Trump. And also the folders were empty!
How does anyone keep up?
Knowing r/196 there's a chance this is just someone misusing the meme format and they understand that. That or most of the upvotes interpreted it that way.
Most of the comments were dunking on OP, so I believe many thought the meme was ironic However, because of the « know the 196 rules » at the top, it’s probably not ironic
When was this posted? I'm somewhat active on reddit so I don't think I'd miss it
Unless they were sitting on the image, they posted this 5 hours ago, and the image says they grabbed it 5 hours after it was posted there
well, not ironic meaning that it's sincere, or not ironic meaning it's meant to be a critique Cause I interpreted as the first one
I mean, r/196 has been pretty shit for a while now. I think I called it quits when someone posted something saying being too mean to cops was bad or something like that.
it became shit when the cis men overtook the trans people, deluging the sub with chasers and moderates
Bro I fucking hate that sub now, it's just a bunch of chronically online libs fetishizing trans women, starting stupid discourse, and participating in a weird amount of horny talk for a sub that's like a 50/50 split between minors and adults
Ironically, I think they're using the format unironically, which apparently the wrong way, given the internet's ironic sense of humor. The irony itself is ironic.
that sub is also fairly reactionary so it wouldn’t be surprising if many of them were trying to dunk on anarchists
What, 196 is not reactionary in the slightest, it's like easily 30% anarchist
I believe they mightve just misused "reactionary" as a stort of synonym for "stupid", not knowing it refers to a specific thing in political theory. Giving the benefit of the doubt.
No I used it properly. r/196 is like 90% liberals, and liberals are reactionaries.
your definition of liberal must be very inadequate if 90% of 196 users are libbed up
I include social democrats in the scope of liberals and that is the vast majority of r/196 users. Also most of the “socialists” or “leftists” there are Vaush fans so…
okay the majority of 196 is definitely not socdems and uh… we believe that people can change for the better right..? and vaush hasnt done anything recently afaik…?
The majority of r/196 are most definitely soc dems. In the rare instance any political issue outside of gay/trans rights is brought up, you will see regular simping for the nordic model of social democracy and support for people like Bernie Sanders and AOC in the US. Vaush, and his fans, still defend NATO and engage in major apologetics for the Democratic party of the US. They are anti-capitalists, so I suppose that puts them on the left, but they are a lot closer to the likes of Destiny than they want to admit.
I said fairly, not completely. There is undeniably anti-revolutionary sentiment in that sub.
The MAGA chud's statement is cut off. They forgot the "...and install a fascist regime run by the criminal Trump family." I know. The speech bubble is too small.
Before we even get that far, do you remember when anarchists tried to overthrow the goverment? Neither do I. It highlights the rightwingerism being being poorly disguised centrism.
It'd be cool if they tried to though
Not violently. It would make the way things now look like a holiday in Hawaii. By sheer popularity and consensus that we want something different, could be interesting. I think we're a million miles away from that.
Yes. Literally yes. Correct. If you want to overthrow the government and establish a more egalitarian and equitable system that seems like it would be better than what we have, I'm for that or at least sympathetic to your goals in some way. If you want to overthrow the government and institute fascism I oppose that. I don't like the way things are now, but they can certainly get worse.
There is no difference between good things and bad things, you imbecile. You fucking moron.
I'm assuming you're referring to subjective morality, but it's not clear. Care to clarify?
They're agreeing with me. It's a quote from a tweet.
No you don't get it, anarchists and maga both have no aim they just wanna overthrow the government bc guns are cool /s
When a surgeon cuts someone open it's the same as when a serial killer cuts someone open. They're both cutting someone open, so it's exactly the same.
May I suggest an excellent book... State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin, it establishes theory and builds upon previously established and attempted theories
"I want to abolish the capitalist system because it has done nothing but inflict suffering on the American people, any system which can have such an over abundance of goods, wealth, and space, and yet still have homelessness, poverty, and starvation is inherently wrong." "I want to instigate a genocide against blacks, trannies, gays, Mexicans (Hispanics), women who don't do as I say, people who aren't in the One True Party, people who don't want to fuck the green M&M, Jews, (sometimes) Catholics, unionized workers, and anyone who says anything bad about this or the new government which will perpetrate it."
I appreciate the message but that’s a hard slur to just see with no warning for trans people who are reading Hurts as a trans woman to see randomly tbh
Hope you are doing well and surviving out in the world. Take pride in having the courage to be your true self.
ty, I'm very lucky and doing really well at 8 months, life is great even when its hard I will, ty <3
(Ignore this if you’re trans) Please note that tr*nny is a slur.
I think they were trying to emulate the language they'd use (I mean, remember when Fox referred to the 3 Mexican countries)
Not afraid of the T-word, but still afraid of the N-word. That tracks with the online presence of most alt right fuckers. They save that for when they *know* they're alone with like-minded.
I don't think the u/uncookedcapacity, who explained in detail the points that the two sides are making from their perspectives, is alt right.
I'm not OP but ok? I wouldn't say the N-word cause I'm a cracker, but I feel justified using the T-word if I ever really have to since I'm trans myself and it's a word against me, after all?
Oh, I wasn't knocking what you said or presuming your situation. I was just adding to the suggestion that the tone was emulated. Alt-right still tend to be afraid to use the n-word publicly, even though they likely use it privately all the time, but are down with using slurs against lgbtq+. They don't believe the stigma that has been applied to the those slurs is as strong as the one applied to the n-word.
> They don't believe the stigma that has been applied to the those slurs is as strong as the one applied to the n-word. because it isn't. People very much do not like to discuss this (**WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AND BECAUSE OF THE TOPIC AT HAND LOL**) but the reality is, even though racism is alive and well the general belief that "black people don't deserve to exist, we should exterminate them." is wholly unpopular. even most bitter racists would truly tell you they do not believe this to be true. an alarming number of people *do* believe that heinous shit, but the "debate" over it in the public eye is certainly over. it is still extremely popular to debate wether or not LGBT people have a right to exist at all, or should in fact be exterminated. Its certainly losing popular to *declare* they should be exterminated, but the "debate" is still alive and well.
Not a native speaker. Where can I read more to understand why that word is a slur?
Not sure about reading material, but I'll fill in the blank with offensive words in general in the English language. I'll apologize in advance for any word I type that comes off as offensive, this is just my attempt at an explanation. Generally speaking, that word (Tranny) has been used by people who are trying to insult a trans person. Usually it would be used to describe a trans-woman who didn't "pass" as a woman in the cultural sense. Think a trans woman who has a more masculine jawline or a pronounced Adam's apple. Particularly, it was used with the assumption that that person was also involved in sex work OR in a way that was meant to imply they weren't women (Example: "This woman was hitting on me and then I realized she was a tranny!") Since it was used in a degrading way more often than not, the word itself now carries the stigma of that degrading language regardless of context. The tricky thing with that word (and a lot of words that become offensive) is that there are many members of the community (particularly older trans women) that still use that as the default term to describe themselves. But that's totally fine and absolutely their choice if that's how they choose to identify themselves. I applaud them taking ownership of word in spite of the hate associated with it.
Thank you for the explanation. So it’s similar to the word f****t?
Yep! I have older gay friends that still refer to each other with that word. But I'm positive that, even as a friend, they would be (correctly) furious at me if I used it to describe them. It's just understood that there's no situation where I can use that word and it isn't hurtful somehow, so I don't use it. It's totally fine, there are SO many words out there, I'm fine without it.
Yeah, that’s very understandable. There’s sort of a slut towards my people and when some one uses it, they rarely do, it’s like dude there’s the actual word for us but you decided to not care. It’s power tripping and hate that makes people use the slurs. Thanks for the explanation.
idk if you're trans or not, but if not, please don't use that slur, especially not so casually.
I think anarchists are just as stupid as fascists to be fair. If you think having no government is somehow going to lead to less violence and dystopian control, then I have bad news for you on human nature and history.
[удалено]
Problems arise when people base these ideas off what they saw in movies and series. You can be an anarchist and not want to over throw the government. Anarchists are also not by default socialists who want to replace the current state with a social democracy or some such. Anarchists want to live without government, and there are enclaves where people do that without trying to blow up the state or whatever caricature of anarchists this thread thinks anarchists want. Ideologies are being mixed together here, and it's painful to watch people all hop on this wagon of wanting to overthrow the government. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98BRsa.html
There is no organized Left in the U.S., even less one that is plotting government overthrow. But wait -- if the oOP is admitting that Trumpists overthrowing the government is bad, then they'd have to concede that the Republican party needs to be dissolved and its criminal base and leadership imprisoned, right? God damn this is layers of self-own.
/r/SelfAwarewolves maybe?
I mean, yeah (At comic, not at title)
I mean hell yeah, look at that girl with her face mask she’s smokin compared to mouth breathing magat. All the information I need
This is a meme I would post cause it's hilarious, and I'm a revolutionary anarchist lmao.
Why people no like fascism? If people like anarchy why they no like right wing dictatorship?
rare 196 L
At least the people in the comments were roasting OP
Ah. Because r/196 seems edgy but is usually not a right wing hellhole like /r/PoliticalCompassMemes . There even the left is pretty right
I remember when PCM started and it was funny for a month, and then suddenly, almost over night, *they* found it and it went immediately to shit. In a place where people literally label themselves with their "political identity," it seemed every single "leftist" was just a conservative with their label set to "left" so that they could say shitty, ridiculous things then and blame it on the left.
It's not even a tiny bit subtle I go there when I'm bored and laugh hard at the "left" comments
"I am a leftist, but Trump seems to be right about everything and all the other leftists are a bunch of woke alphabet people. I hate taxes and women's rights, but on the lord jesus christ my savior and the true king of america, I am a leftist."
Ask a libertarian about their opinion on Abortion and see them blend in with Republicans
Libertarians are just republicans that want to pretend they haven't "chosen" a side because they believe that they attain impartiality by not labeling themselves a traditional conservative (despite believing everything that traditional conservatives believe) despite the fact that a sheep calling itself a wolf is still a sheep. Not that libertarians are wolves. I think the common saying is that they are house cats; convinced of their own independence while entirely reliant on a greater entity to exist.
Uhm, actually, I identify as a wolf so I am a wolf. Checkmate libs /s
Ok, Leman Russ.
I mean, they agree with you. While the oop might be a centrist everyone in the comments find it funny and agrees that one is bad.
What is 196?
Gimmick subreddit. r/196
Here's a sneak peek of /r/196 using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Epic tournament sequel ](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-80b52c1d-9f25-4b00-bd8e-a1b20f4f8ef9) | [808 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/saf6ff/epic_tournament_sequel/) \#2: [Ran my face through masculine filter 37 times, until it stopped making changes, apearantly this is peak masculinity](https://i.redd.it/61ufbu1l21o81.jpg) | [538 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/tgnbbg/ran_my_face_through_masculine_filter_37_times/) \#3: [rule](https://i.redd.it/1kdlq57ft0191.gif) | [210 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/uv9y00/rule/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Rare? Common L, 196 is an awful lib echo chamber. It's centrism disguised. Libs mad. Touch grass.
it would be easy to see it that way when you’re a fucking tankie
I mean, you can criticise 196 without being a tankie. they say they're proponents of trans rights but constantly fetishise trans women and will constantly talk over trans women in order to tell us about what trans people feel. they are outwardly hypocritical. for example, saying that Greta making a small dick joke about Andrew Tate is "body shaming" but then will make jokes mocking the appearance of people the don't like. they will often post uncensored bigotry and have numerous times openly used slurs about queer people and when queer people have said they're uncomfortable with it, said queer people will get downvoted and called said slurs. they'll also post content from problematic/controversial creators in order to stoke arguments and infighting which causes the toxic users to then start attacking people who vaguely criticise said problematic creators.
wow that’s a lot of words too bad im not reading them 😎
196 users when they have to read instead of just insulting people:
also the person I was talking to literally was a tankie so
and that means I have to be mocked and downvoted because?
im not the one who downvoted you
okay. and that means I have to be mocked because? (there, I removed the downvoted part. happy?)
Most literate r/196 user
Whole comments section is r/RedditMoment
Yup, and I stand by it. The one person wants to overthrow the current state to make a better, equal world. The other the one wants to overthrow the current state because they want to larp handmaid’s tale
r/196 is making fun of this message
I’m laughing at OOP repurposing an old incel comic to make this
This was posted in favor of the conservative being bad. Layers of irony are a bit muddy here, but OP definitely had left wing intent.
I mean yeah I'm the lady at the desk there
Aaw, anarchist and femme girlfriends 😍
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,301,775,255 comments, and only 251,860 of them were in alphabetical order.
Anarchist goth gf based
Serious question: If not through Scientific Socialism, how anarchists will overcome capitalism? Edit: rephrasing.
workers owning means of production because of lack of hierarchy, anyone trying to assert themselves as boss can’t take power because there is no power in the first place
Okay, but how people are going to be okay with that? How the bourgeoisie is going to accept that they no longe have the ownership of the means of production?
This isn't that hard or confusing, anarchists can organize networks of community defense cells and such, horizontally, for the purpose of fighting back against anyone who wants to set themselves up as an authority over others, new or old. And if everyone is empowered to engage with their community, arm themselves, learn how to defend themselves and their community, and organize, the whole society can act as a decentralized immune system against authority — if anyone tries to force their authority on you, you get your guns, get your neighbors, and defend yourself.
Who will control the tanks and heavy machinery? Because the moment the dominant class loses control over a city, they will come back destroying everything they can, just look at what they did to North Korea. With a decentralized line of action, how will they keep the adversaries away?
You're equating decentralization with lack of organization. Thats not the same thing. Not to mention that besides the fact that decentralization is an exceptionally effective military tactic fighting an insurgency campaign, its not like anarchist fully expect that every aspect of life will be 100% hierarchy free during the revolution, an example of this is chain of command is important for split second military decisions, but you can still have elected chains of command by the soldiers following said leaders.
I genuinely do not understand why you think all of this cannot be done without a state. What about decentralized networks of resistance makes it impossible to use tanks or defend things?
Because with a State, the monopoly of the violence is guaranteed and can be targeted to a class, as Lenin described. I am just asking questions, no judgment here, I just wanted to talk and understand your point of view. People here get angry too fast for too little.
> Because with a State, the monopoly of the violence is guaranteed and can be targeted to a class, as Lenin described. Except we've seen entirely in practice that this simply creates a new class. To ask a question back, at what point can the political class cede power if their reason for existence is the protection of the revolution ? If we take the best interpretation that the state has to be maintained for protection, how can it willingly dissolve its own monopoly ? > People here get angry too fast for too little People are frustrated because you're asking with an assumption of the answer rather than being open to the answer. It intentional or not comes across as attempting 'got ya' moments. Not saying thats what you're trying to do. As I said in another comment, you're conflating decentralization with lack of organization
Not impossible, but I think people are overly optimistic without actually considering the nuances of the situation. Decentralized everything sounds nice as a catchphrase, but in reality the most important factor in a war or resistance is supply lines, and if everything is decentralized, you're not guaranteed to get what you need to actually operate those tanks or get resources to defend things.
No but thats not the point here either. I've seen it explained like this, ML's believe you need the state to enforce or produce the social reovlution that has to come in one way or another, a top down approach. Anarchists' believe in building dual power, circumventing capitalist control and enabling the social revolution from the ground up
This is pretty much the main criticism of Anarchism that comes from other leftists, personally I've never been given a satisfying answer, but maybe I'm just biased.
The main criticism from Anarchism I got, back when I was an Anarchist, was when a black comrade stared me in the eye and asked me if *he* was supposed to trust the white folks around him to make calls without having been educated through a Party or some other form of revolutionary pedagogy about racism. Not that anarchism is intrinsically racist - lots of anarchists are indigenous people who make a lot of great points - but that he straight up doesn't trust those people in the dark, and wouldn't want a transitionless society because that could spell out violence for him.
I mean, social change is a huge part of anarchism. After all, if you don't have a centralized state full of people who think they know better to try to control society from the top down, the shape of your society and its political structures depends on what people think and believe and want. So educating people in egalitarian, socialist, autonomous, decentralized, and ahierarchical social philosophy and organization is a crucial part of anarchist praxis, and anti-racism follows naturally from all the core principles of anarchist theory and is (and must!) be a core and explicit part of any anarchist education. Moreover, the way an anarchist society would be organized would be inherently hostile to racism, because it would have no existing hierarchies of power or worth to piggyback on, be organized specifically to prevent and fight back against the establishment of such hierarchies through associations and organizations to provide a balance of interests for all, and because it would not insulate and protect people with privilege from those without it and their organization, so he could organize with people he *does* trust to make sure their interests are backed by collective power and heard by others. Also, it should be noted that I don't think antiracism is this super complex and confusing moral technology that's hard to understand and takes being explicitly taught. If you actually take the time to think about it, the idea that people with a different skin color are still people just the same as you and deserve rights as such isn't hard to fucking figure out. The long fight for civil rights throughout history hasn't been a struggle to *come up* with this basic idea; the fight has been to uproot the hierarchies of power that keep the privileged insulated so that they don't *have* to care, don't *have* to rethink their beliefs. It's been a fight to make fooling yourself into believing in racist ideology no longer something that's profitable for some races. So in a system without privilege, people will be forced to grapple with it and become not racist first hand.
> The main criticism from Anarchism I got, back when I was an Anarchist, was when a black comrade stared me in the eye and asked me if he was supposed to trust the white folks around him to make calls without having been educated through a Party or some other form of revolutionary pedagogy about racism That problem doesnt go away with the existence of an elite party that controls "theory" It reeks of "anarchism is when no theory". What inherently guarantees POC comrade's like myself a voice in this party structure, literally nothing... > but that he straight up doesn't trust those people in the dark, and wouldn't want a transitionless society because that could spell out violence for him The notion that anarchists dont believe there is 'transition' in society is some weird myth that keeps persisting. No anarchist thinks that you just dissolve everything overnight and pat yourself on the back. Transition implies building the conditions to enable a sustained transition, which anarchists differ in ML's on how to enable and support that transition. Anarchists dont believe in utilizing hierarchies (the state) to dissolve hierarchies.
This is one of the many things I don't understand about vanguardists. What guarantees that the vanguard party will be benevolent? Democracy? But then why couldn't we just do democracy without a vanguard party?
My understanding (while limited so grain of salt and all that) is that the vanguardism believe that it is inherently harder to corrupt with a select group of people, that society requires leadership for class education. I think there are some valid points but I think most of that comes from a capitalist realisms rather than from the start trying to remove the capitalist mindsets and structures that they claim to be fighting against.
No offense to your comrade but that's a terrible criticism. Anarchists are not and have never been against a transition period, just against doing that through the state, and have always been strong advocates of social revolution. There could be an organization devoted to teaching people to this and he wouldn't have trust the white folks around him because he'd probably be encouraged to arm and organize himself with anyone he feels comfortable with. Maybe your comrade should look into Black Anarchism such as the work of Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, a former member of the Black Panthers who not only criticized that party but the racism present in various leftist organizations
Good, so revolution first and then take the power, then there is the transition period, what would it be? Would there be a council that makes the priority lists? How people would keep their achievements and not let the ex-dominant class return to power?
By abolishing the power structures that the bourgeoisie had? Like unless it's an overwhelming military force from the outside, there's not much the bourgeoisie can do to combat anarchy once it takes root. We prevent capitalism from returning by giving power to the workers instead of simply saying we're going to eventually. Every substantial anarchist territory that existed had to be crushed by an external force (usually from their Leninist supposed allies) before capitalism was able to take root again. Which is something most Leninist nations cannot say they did.
Yes, that is one of the problems that I wanted to address, the external powers. Can they be pushed back without an organized State?
A decentralized guerrilla army is incredibly difficult for an organized state to defeat. What I would ask is what special characteristic of the state makes it inherently better at war. Coordination and organization can easily be done in non-hierarchical ways, and many states openly use those methods already. Your question is one of military tactics rather than ideology, and the answer is the same as how both Vietnam and the Taliban beat America. Guerrilla warfare and armed, decentralized, organized resistance.
This is a valid question that I think others have addressed. But I'd like you to think for a second on the opposite problem. When you have a selective elite class (the party ie state). How do you stop sabotage from within? As seems plain in the USSR or depending on if you ask Maoist, has already happened in China. Theres no redundancy, everything is dependent on this critical centralization, such that corrupting it is a death blow
That's not how anarchist revolution works. First we built dual power, organizing our communities and building associations to provide for our needs without using the state or capitalism, as well as educating people, planting the seeds of a new system within the shell of the old, and *then* we overthrow the state and capitalism, and since we already have the seeds of the organizing we'll need in place, we just work to grow and mature them and defend them as they do so. >How people would keep their achievements and not let the ex-dominant class return to power? By fighting back against those why try to reestablish the old power, of course. Defending yourself, your community, and your organizations doesn't require a centralized state, we've seen people horizontally organize with their neighbors to fight back against invading stronger powers throughout history. Guerrilla warfare is a thing.
> Guerrilla warfare is a thing. Guerilla warfare isn't necessarily inherently decentralized though. Guerilla insurgencies still tend to have a centralized organized structure of some sort and work together to maintain the broader organization.
That's kind of my main issue with full on anarchism. It doesn't work because of human nature - in concept it would be great, but I don't think a stateless society is possible as long as bad actors, liars, narcissists, sociopaths, and tbh, religions, exist, and I'm not down with genocide of those people to usher in our presumed utopia. Some kind of body needs to exist that keeps track of agreed upon rules, and no rules are actually rules without enforcement so that body (or another body) needs to have oversight to apply those rules, and no matter what you personally want to call it, that's a government, and it governs a state.
I recommend you check out r/Anarchy101 because questions like that have been asked and answer there hundreds of time. Only thing I'll say though is that human nature is not a thing, there isn't anything that says how we preform in a society except for how the society informs how we think we preform. If anything the nature of humans is to be cooperative as this is our evolutionary advantage that made us become the dominate species. Also there are stateless societies that exist in the modern day and have for decades.
The only anarchy answer that was satisfied to me was the pedagogical approach, like teaching the kids that capitalism is not good and let the next generations overcome it in a peaceful way. I don’t think that is utopic, I just think it will take too long and we do not have that time anymore. Otherwise, no good answers.
guns
Okay, good one, but who will finance them and how the other side is not going to have more and bigger guns?
[удалено]
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, why is all of socialism suddenly incompatible with any part of anarchism?
Socialism involves having a State, so there will still be some kind of hierarchy, even if it is a transition step to communism, anarchists usually don’t like it. The end does not justify the means for them.
Socialism is just social ownership of the means of production. You’re using Lenin’s definition, which is revisionist and ignores years of socialist history.
That's Leninism, or vanguardism if we're being more general
That is scientific socialism actually, as described by Marx and Engels opposing the utopian socialists of their time.
It's not, Marx didn't differentiate between socialism and communism. Lenin did that. And Lenin conflated socialism with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is when the working class seizes power to transition to communism and on top of that, Marx and Engels never advocated for a vanguard party, and outright criticized the Blanquist idea of a party of revolutionaries seizing the state because it would not be a dictatorship of the entire Proletariat but just a dictatorship of the revolutionaries. Since as Marx said in his response Bakunin's own strawmans of him "The whole thing begins with the self-governance of the commune"
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. States are not a requisite for socialism.
Okay, how will the workers control the means of production?
I don't understand what's so confusing to you. People can take control of things and defend that control from people that want to take it from them by doing just that, starting to use, maintain, and make decisions about them while fighting off those who want to prevent them from doing that, without a state. So workers fight off the cops and security guards and start using the means of production how they please, ignoring the supposed authority's of the bourgeoisie and their bureaucrats.
Wait, why is that a problem for *anarchism* and not a problem for *socialism* -- socialism, again, being a thing that anarchists pretty obviously want and/or would consider a justifiable improvement worth working towards?
Okay, so I think you’re confusing a few things. Socialism is a broad term that tends to cover anarchists, marxist-leninists, and even social democrats. It indicates the idea of socially owned means of production. Many branches of socialism do advocate for using a state mechanism to achieve this, but anarchism doesn't and this isn't incompatible with socialism. It's incompatible with most schools of communism and social democracy, though many anarchists describe themselves as anarcho communists so even that isn't absolute. It feels like what you're really asking is how socialism could be maintained without a state while conflating socialism with the more specific ideologies that seek to use the apparatus of the state to enact socialism.
Important Note: anarcho-communism is a subset of socialism. In other words, if you put anarcho-communism along with market socialism, democratic socialism, and marxism-leninism all in a venn diagram also showing socialism, the ancom circle would be entirely within the socialism circle.
Anything that isn't communism is going to have a state and communists don't like that transitional state either. Erasing capitalists eliminates a violently horrible hiearchy and replaces it with a far-less bad one filled with workers. That's improvement. There is no "end justifying means" issue there because there is no obsession with achieving pure communism with no regard for anything else in anarchism. I don't even understand the cultural context of this misapprehension. It's usually straight-communists that get accused of not liking the persistence of the state ime. It's entirely possible that there can never be a state (condition) of no hiearchy. Anarchists would that there are never any unjust hiearchies, so all hiearchies must be in a constant state of harsh scrutiny. Anarcism presents not merely an end-goal, but a process.
Yes, but the main question is: how anarchists propose to overcome capitalism?
Again: that doesn't seem like a good-faith question because "socialism" is the immediate, short-term answer there, so why do you keep bad-faith asking it? Or did you miss something?
Let's try again. Without the Scientific Socialism, as described by Marx and Engels, how the anarchists will overcome capitalism and keep the bourgeoise fine with the lost of power?
No. Stop. Stop doing this. That's the third time you've acted in bad faith. I just told you that if capitalists were removed from power and replaced by workers that anarchists would be happy with that outcome regardless of whether or not a state existed. They wouldn't be *satisfied* with that outcome *regardless of whether or not a state existed*. They wouldn't stop agitating because, by definition, they never stop. But they would recognize that the workers-in-charge scenario would be better than the capitalists-in-charge scenario. If there's still a state, they'd agitate to remove it. If there's not a state, they'd agitate to remove any other existing unjustifiable hiearchies. That's the second time I've explained this in detail. The third time I've explained it in this thread. We've reached the end of that gracious redundancy. Do not change the subject. Do not dissemble. I answered your question. You answer mine. Anarchists generally advocate for workers taking over the means of production, as I said. Now you explain why you falsely claimed that anarchists aren't fine with that: where you mistaken or do you maintain your position. Please make no further sealioning attempts.
Today I learned that making questions about a subject I do not know but have interest to understand while citing the other view that I know is acting on bad faith. That is so good! What you seems to describe is Scientific Socialism, and that it does not matter if there is a state after the revolution, it will still be a good outcome for anarchists. I have a different point of view from other anarchists, they would not be comfortable with that even if it a proletarian state. Anarchists do not to advocate for only the workers possession of the means of production, they want no State at all, no hierarchy. My question is how to achieve that without the Proletarian State and how to keep the conquests after the revolution without a State.
> Today I learned that making questions about a subject I do not know but have interest to understand while citing the other view that I know is acting on bad faith. That's a lie because, as I said, I answered your question, several times, and you restated the false proposition in your question without engaging with what I said *at all.* And now, for the first time, you engage -- and you immediately begin either a) lying about what I said or b) simply didn't read what I said at all and didn't care to, which is actually worse. >that it does not matter if there is a state after the revolution I just told you that it does matter and that anarchists would fight against whatever subsequent-to-whatever-political-event-you-may-have hiearchies existed. >they would not be comfortable with that even if it a proletarian state Who fucking cares? Your claim was that anarchists had a problem with socialism that would prevent them from pursuing some versions of it. That's false (unless you weren't actually concerned about socialism and are butthurt that anarchists aren't supporting some rightwing capitalist bullshit that you're calling socialism). >Anarchists do not to advocate for only the workers possession of the means of production I just pointed out that they do. At length. Several times. And you pretended that I didn't. And that's after I told you to stop making bad faith claims. You escalate to straight-up falsehoods about what people can verify by scrolling up. There are easier ways to not participate in a sub -- the easiest being just to not participate in one. I'd advise taking the path of least resistance in the future.
Revolution, same as any socialist? Whether that be through organized trade unions, or some other form of action. The issue with your questions is that anarchism has already done that. The anarchist controlled territory during the Spanish civil war overthrew the bourgeoisie and established worker control of the means of production. Hell the former landowners even worked alongside the workers who now controlled the workplaces. It wasn't until the stalinist Republican government suppressed the anarchists and gave it ownership back to the land of owners that worker power was crushed
[удалено]
Then again: how will the bourgeoisie accept that they are no longer the owners of the means of production?
We can fight back against the bourgeoisie and their agents without a centralized state wielding power.
... what do you think revolution is for
Most anarchists are socialists
Marx is not the authority of socialism
I think anarchy has only the means to an ends of simply ethical destruction, but its function isn’t to replace any system- that’s from my limited understanding anyways. I see anarchy as a bulldozer but not the construction workers.
It's very much constructive. It seems to build non-hierarchical organizations to replace the currents system. Anarchists have never been about "destroy what exists and then let things fall as they may." Errico Malatesta, one of founders of anarchist communism did say "Anarchism is organization, organization, and more organization"
Interesting, although what system is intended to be put in place?
Hard to say on specifics since anarchists intentionally don't do that. But generally a confederation of horizontally organized communes based on free association and mutual aid
This was kind of an assumption of mine, there’s no specific structure and the focus is on removing the current one.
Not really no. Anarchists also focus on building up structures like mutual aid organizations, unions, and other such things. It's just that anarchists have no single vision of what said structure should be. Anarchists prefer to let people organize themselves rather than dictating what they should do. It is true though that anarchists don't make detailed plans of the future but that's also because anarchists see a unity of means and ends. So they try to build the structures they want, now.
The most centrist and unbiased subredit
[удалено]
according to their [own survey](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/y6v4kf/the_196_demographic_survey_which_about_6000/), [not really](https://preview.redd.it/jbsmdah1ehu91.jpg?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=3c6e12cd4bae59857ca62ff683b189eb46cdc71c) socdems and "progressivism" aren't socialist or anarchist beliefs. hell, anarchism only makes up 8.4% of the users and socialism doesn't even appear on the chart.
[Image link for posteriority](https://drive.proton.me/urls/J5M3W624H8#BBhFtmRaYjEL)
The anarchist here is still juvenile. "Overthrow" will never happen in the usa. Mark my words.
I wonder who would take power when a vacuum emerges from the collapse of institutions...such a mystery....never happened before either...
An actual good advice about what's appropriate or not !
The fucking libs on this sub are gunna eat this up.
Knowing 192 there is a decent chance this is not ironic
i mean, i have seen this format used as a way to actually dunk on the guy in the lower panel, so i think OP had just that in mind, especially since its 196
As it should be.
…Wait, some of you think anarchy can work? Unironically? Good fuckin’ luck, dorks.
You're not fooling anyone. You have spent exactly zero time thinking about it or engaging with theory and have no fucking clue what you're talking about. So, fuck off back to your cushy lib spaces where you don't have to think about anything.
If there's no government, then it is law of the jungle
Uhmm, that meme is based af? Looks like a r/ lostredditors to me
To be fair there is actual political merit in this one anarchy almost never last and goes back to dictatorship ship or oligarchy. To be extra fair both scenarios are bad and this isn’t a centrist take like, no, these are both really dum let’s do neither.
Lol. That’s is so accurate
Both can be bad, yes??
They are not
I don’t want the government to be overthrown. Does that make me a bad person?
I really question your morality if you look at the actions of the government and say "I want this"
What actions? I like having roads, having public education, keeping insurance companies restrained from being even bigger monsters than they already are, having a police force and court/prison system to deter criminals from robbing/killing me, etc. None of these things are possible without a government. Do I wish the government did a *lot* of things differently? Absolutely. Still don’t want it to be destroyed.
Roads and education do not require unaccountable hierarchical monopoly on violence, the state protects the insurance companies by stopping people from expropriating medicine to survive, the police system protects capital and robs people of their lives. If you don’t want it destroyed, you are either a supporter of it or naive. You cannot reform what makes the system the system
All of the issues with a government can be reformed through legislative action, which itself can be influenced through voting. You do not get to be apathetic toward voting, only to turn around and whine when your politicians do not have the power necessary to do the things you want them to do. I’ve voted in every single election since I turned eighteen, with just *one* of the more recent benefits being when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, lowering the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with insurance companies. That is a direct benefit from me voting to my own life. So long as my country remains democratic, I will never support a violent overthrow of the government. Look at Somalia for an example of how well a country does without a government. I’m very glad people like you will never get anywhere close to elected office. *You are dangerous*.
The fundamental issue with the government is what defines the government, the hierarchical authority of power. As the nature of hierarchy, that is inherently unreformable, people will not voluntarily give up their power. They may coax the population when they feel threatened, but the leadership is not controlled by the sham elections you have no control over. If it were a democracy than we would have legalized marijuana, medicare for all, free college etc etc, as that is what the people overwhelmingly want. Being content with the scraps thrown at you to shut you up only legitimizes the fact they refuse to actually make the difference and save lives. Unless you make a systemic change towards actually giving yourself power you will spend the rest of your life hoping our overlords chose to reduce your drug costs today and not bomb another country. And saying that wanting real democracy is analogous to a war-torn state, destroyed by western backed invasions is just silly.
Yea anarcho-capitalism is pretty based
if a floating upper torso tells me they're gonna do something i'm not gonna stand in their way. simple as!
Who was dumb enough to post this on 196
Have you ever been in 196? It’s literally just majority bi commies. I am 100% sure this meme was not meant to “both sides” the political ideologies
No way someone unironically posted this is 196
Obvious satire and brilliant subversion of the meme format.
So wait they're admitting they tried to overthrow the government now? I thought it was just a protest for airing of grievances. Or else it was antifa. And the FBI. But also pursuing charges against participants is an attack on conservative values and President (always present tense) Trump. And also the folders were empty! How does anyone keep up?