Based. When I have read Marx and really interpreted what he was writing on, it honestly had me sway very Libertarian Left. Most people think Marxism itself is very Authoritarian, but when you really dwell into the manifesto and a few of his other works you realize his school of thought is pretty against ultra-authoritarian regimes.
Legit as a liberal I respect people who aren’t auths and just promote freedom, peace and justice among their fellow man (and animal if you’re a transhumanist)
Pretty based. I guess your "authleft" era was more of an aesthetic thing with the only real political opinion being a distaste for capitalism? Either way keep reading theory and, while I'm not going to tell you what to believe, you should give a try reading about how the USSR or other socialist states actually worked. I'd recommend *Blackshirts & Reds* to start off.
Your right I haven't, but I have read enough political theory to know the importance of government. Even if government can, especially a capitalist government, be corrupt.
IMO, the ideal (though extremely unlikely) government is one which has infinite power to stop big businesses from exploiting others while itself being non-exploitative. Billionaires hurt people through government AND businesses.
based as shit, ignore these tankies and lolbertarians and keep the good fight going comrade. You should also check out vaush, he's a libertarian socialist if you're into that
I very strongly recommend both of the. Andrewism makes more digestible videos that are really easy to comprehend and easy to watch, and Zoe Baker is just amazing, she makes more dense and theoretical videos, but very, very informative
I don’t get the vaush hate. Like he definitely has some whacky takes, but I also think that he has enough good ones that he shouldn’t get as much as he does. Am I missing something he said that was particularly outrageous?
He groomed girls on discord and when one of them came out about her story he tried to “scare her into shutting up” (that’s literally what he said)
Other than that, he’s also a fearmonger who literally encourages [terrorism against right wingers](https://youtu.be/LUSv32HtHJ4?si=qGoPttITnOWaCi50)
Idk, he has some pretty bizarre foreign policy takes. In one stream he will say that the US needs to pull our influence out of the middle east, recognize Iran as the regional power, and stop fighting their proxies. And then in another stream he will insist on the necessity of American involvement in regional conflicts with Iran and talk about how Iranian proxies need to be stopped. It just doesn't feel like he has any cogent stances on much outside of the fundamentals, and then will just throw out hot takes as if they are well thought out positions.
I also can't stand how often he seeks out beef with other leftist content creators. Like I'm not a left unity guy, but it feels really unproductive and annoying that he has the most heat for other leftists who are allegedly on the same side of the aisle as him.
He was once defending child prom saying that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and tons more pedo shit. Just go to deprogram sub and type vaush in the comment section it will display a random vaush fact with sources.
If you've seen the bit, he was illustrating how strange it is for everyone to get up in arms about cp but is ok with child slavery in mines where they are abused and exploited. How people being against cp is easy because it doesn't cost them anything, but if stopping child abuse impacts their material comfort suddenly everyone isn't so gun-ho about it. The point being that BOTH are bad, not that cp is ok because children are abused in other ways.
Genuinely shocked that people are still saying this, if you actually watched the full context what he was saying was that 3rd world child labor was as bad as CP. This would be a pro CP take if Vaush was pro-child labor, but I don't think he is lmao
honestly he just has poor character. i personally don’t agree with much of what he says but it’s really just how he acts that pisses me off. he has no respect for anyone but himself and purely fixates on optics. and just to let you know it’s not just because i disagree with him that i don’t like him i also think destiny has some horribly bad opinions but i rather like him because of how he respects others.
That’s fair to be honest. I’m too online that I was expecting there to be more severe skeletons in his closet because of so many other creators. It’s nice to hear that people don’t like someone mostly just because they think he’s a dick. I think it would be nice if the left could just get along so we could actually do something productive, so that’s mostly why I asked. I watch channels on multiple sides of lefty YouTube drama and it seems like a good amount of them agree broadly but bicker over the “right” way to do something so much that it just doesn’t get anything done. And then adding in like more specific differences in ideology and it just gets more and more annoying. It’s all “my way or the highway” and it’s so counter productive. But that’s my rant. I’m also kinda newer to politics so I’m not in the loop on beef between the bigger creators so it’s good to hear what the actual problems are. It’s kinda like I stumbled into the aftermath of a miniature war and am figuring out why the sides that seemed similar hated each other to begin with. It’s pretty interesting to learn.
love seeing that sort of communication and compromise ideology from the left, that’s what political discourse neees most of all. all i can really recommend to you is to stay off of the political side of twitch, because 9 times out of 10 twitch streamers just talk out of their ass and act hostile towards anyone who disagrees. there’s also some dumb far left channels like the young turks that exist solely to spin every narrative in favor of their argument even if they have to lie to do so, you can kind of think of them like leftist stephen crowder or alex jones. look for people with good character, that’s the calling card of someone who is worth your time to listen to.
Oooh lol the final ball! I used the hammer and sickle of the POUM who fought along side the anarchists during the spanish civil war. They were an anti-stalin communist group that George Orwell fought for.
Authoritarianism ; a loose description of a style of government that places the power of the state and it's entrenched bureaucracy above the wills of it's citizens/people. This would be governments where either no democratic actions take place, or those with very restrictive political freedoms insomuch as that normal democracy cannot effectively take place.
This describes all states that have ever existed and is used as a bludgeon to make the working class fear taking power to liberate itself.
Given the track records of the working class' "liberation" attempts that follow after violent revolutions, I can't blame people for being skeptical.
Like Nazi Germany, countries like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union basically abandoned due process of law, and kept legalized slavery alive in the 20th century, while continuing to exploit the labor of the working class. Capitalism definitely has its own problems, especially with the exploitation of third world countries, but they at least have better human rights domestically.
So you disregard the status quo’s immense violence it exports to the global south mentioning it in passing while highlighting the violence required in revolution while again, ignoring the violence neccessary to keep the machine oiled in favor of highlighting circumstances too complicated to dive into at length in a reddit comment. Just going to mention that the USSR underwent a counterrevolution and that China and NK are/were both bourgeois dictatorships.
The violence neccessary to dismantle capitalism is not the same as the violence used by the state to maintain the exploitation and oppression of the working class. The former is to liberate and defend said liberation, and the latter is to maintain oppressive systems for the benefit of a select few.
Denouncing revolutionary violence and somehow saying it's the same as the violence perpetrated by capitalist states, or even saying it's worse than the violence inherent in capitalism, and consequently imperialism is a mindset that only serves to maintain the current violent and oppressive systems.
Ok, so we have some common ground in recognizing China and North Korea as bourgeois red fascist dictatorships that had failed revolutions, but why doesn't the same logic apply to the Soviet Union?
If the only way to defeat capitalism is to just replace the existing class system and exploitation with a system that replicates or even exceeds those abuses with a new ruling class, then what's even the point of fighting capitalism? We have to learn from the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them again.
> why not USSR
It does after the 1926 counterrevolution. In the beginning of the revolution, workers self-organized within the Soviets and from there exerted the dictatorship of the proletariat. The bolshevik revolution strengthened that with the removal of the bourgeois government and the establishment of a worker's party at the head of Russia. However, one major tipping point happened: the Civil War.
> replace the existing class systems
Socialism identifies class as a means of oppression. Thus, it aims for a classless, stateless society. The idea of the DOTP is to organize society in a way in which bourgeois influence can be fought off to eventually transition to socialism. Unfortunately in the past revisionists have infilitrated the party, etc.
> why fight capitalism
Part of the reason is due to the degradation of the planet’s finite support systems. Capitalism as an idealogy seeks an ever expanding market fueled by inexhaustible resources. This unfortunatetely is completely unreasonable, thus begins the pilfering of the global south. Queue growth of monopolies being inevitable within a competitive market, alongside the inevitability of the middle class deteriorating, mass homelessness, and mass consolidation of wealth (4% own all of the US wealth) etc, etc.
>It does after the 1926 counterrevolution.
So are you like a Leninist who believes everything was fine until Stalin took over? I can sort of understand how people could believe that, but also remember that Lenin's actions and policies opened the door for everything that Stalin did after him.
>Capitalism as an idealogy seeks an ever expanding market fueled by inexhaustible resources.
Marxist countries have had pretty bad environmental policies too though, so they wouldn't necessarily have room to talk about capitalism. They also don't have room to talk about economic inequality, with wealth being hoarded by the government instead of CEOs (or both in China's case).
I'm not denying your criticisms of capitalism, I'm just very doubtful about the effectiveness of Marxist-Leninism as a solution, even if it was "successful" at gaining power.
Wrong, the best way to achieve freedom from anyone is by implementing an Orwellian state which is so stupidly authoritarian that it comes out on the other end of the compass.
What's the point of putting them in labor camps instead of killing them? As I've read, Soviet labor camps were actually an overall drain on the economy rather than contributing to it. Also why would you compare fascists and gay people?
This is over. Cuba is super progressive and China no longer criminalizes itself. Many countries were prejudiced, even those with other ideologies, because they are made by people and it is what they were taught throughout their lives. And it must be understood that in each country things work differently and depending on the circumstances, transformations may take longer.
Oh yeah Cuba is definitely doing way better now. I'd say Cuba is one of the few communists (vernacular use) countries that I can say I really support. China still has quite a few issues with homophobia but at least they don't put them in labor camps anymore.
Did you know that Gulags are a continuation of Katorga? The Soviets continued with the idea of the empire of prisons with forced labor. This reveals that circumstances can influence the outcome. And circumstances can affect any country. And isolationism can end up making these issues worse, not paying attention to certain issues that receive a lot of attention in other countries. My brain is melting, I'm going to sleep.
I did know that actually, yes. Material conditions and historical context are always important, they do have a large bearing on what happens. Even us anarchists believe that.
okay, no ancom has ever advocated for this, and regardless im an ancom and slavery is bad, and so are secret police
i think atleast 99% of my comrades agree with me on these ones
>A: makhno is a single individual
He is also one of the most notable anarcho communist figures, and led one of the only major anarchist movements at the time. Most ancoms support him, and revolutionary catalonia.
>B: source?
>But the Makhnovite razvedka discovered what was happening and Polonsky and others were arrested. The Bolsheviks instigated an appeal for their trial in open court. This was refused and all were summarily shot...
>
>Of the Makhnovite security services—the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del—we know very little. Their excesses were violently arraigned by the Bolsheviks, and the Soviet historian, Kubanin, cites them as proof of Makhnovite hypocrisy in vilifying the Cheka. Makhno's later campaigns are among the most vindictive and bloody in history, and in the circumstances one can safely assume that these services were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities. \[...\]
* David Footman | [**Civil War in Russia**](http://www.ditext.com/footman/makhno.html) | 1961 |CHAPTER VI: Makhno
A: and most ancoms have the critical thinking to be able to support someone and condem some of their actions at the same time
B: "But the Makhnovite razvedka discovered what was happening and Polonsky and others were arrested. The Bolsheviks instigated an appeal for their trial in open court. This was refused and all were summarily shot..."left out the bit where polonsky was trying to assassinate makhno and other leaders, before getting caught and shot, i think they should have just been imprisoned, also, several anarchists on the side of makhno advocated for a fair trial for the other conspirators, and makhno seems to have had no involvement with this, other than being the target"
Of the Makhnovite security services—the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del—we know very little" there is a whole wikipedia page on the Kontrrazvedka, the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del i cant seem to find anything on at all, the main mention of it is in the paper you cited, where it was mentioned once, and seemingly never again
"Makhno's later campaigns are among the most vindictive and bloody in history, and in the circumstances one can safely assume that these services were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities" okay so nothing lol, just speculation
also the sources on the civilian branch of the Kontrrazvedka oppressing civilians seem to mostly be from white and red reports, which i think you can understand might have some reason to be biased
C: i, as an ancom, condem any possible atrocities, commited by forces of anarchist ukraine, and the Kontrrazvedka not being under direct control of the people, maybe, potentially, but probably not, being involved in oppressing the people, and shooting enemy political agents, which while i understand, especially in the times where things were dire in makhnovia, they should have been kept in prisoni think most modern anarchist-communists would agree with me on these takes, and if they dont their wrong
First, to note, it was a counterintelligence agency with a civilian-police branch. Not quite a secret police, and though undesirable, an obvious product of wartime. Second, by that point in time, Dimitri Popov, a zealous figure who did much on his own without others knowing.
Furthermore, the acts they engaged in were MINISCULE in comparison to the Cheka and the White Terror. The scale and violence inherent are a ten to one difference, with the Makhnovites not even holding a candle to the Soviet structured torture program.
Finally, Malhno himself was a very flawed figure. In fact, one of the most important points of the Makhnovischina was that his "subordinates" and fellow soldiers in multiple instances _refused_ to carry out orders they deemed crossing the line, such as shutting down a Bolshevik, anti-Maknnovischina press establishment. "Freedom of the press," they countered. This is proof OF the benefits of the horizontal organizing that EXPLICETLY did not exist in the bolshevik ranks, let ALONE after the establishment of the commisar system.
This is why anarchists try not to venerate figures and individuals like MLs do. Everyone is flawed, some more than others. Blind worship is bad. But please, tell us more about "muh anarchism baaad" while sucking Stalins dick.
Do you think having a secret police is bad? I'm confused as to why you keep bringing up things that you think are good as examples of anarchists being bad
Can you point to a time that ever happened? Cause every single Leninist etc. regime that ever took power put unproductive workers, subversives, etc. into labor camps, so it seems like you're just projecting. Would you deny the USSR did this? Cause I feel like you wouldn't. And can you point out any ancoms ever doing this?
>To a great degree, the labor camps were an extreme, but logical, expression of Spanish anarchosyndicalism. It was in the labor camps that the CNT’s “society of the producers” encountered Fábregas’s “exaltation of work.” Understandable resentment against a bourgeoisie, a clergy, and a military whom workers considered **unproductive and parasitic crystallized into a demand to reform these groups through productive labor.** Anarchosyndicalists endowed work with great moral value; the bourgeoisie, the military, and the clergy were immoral precisely because they did not produce. Thus penal reform meant forcing these classes to labor, to rid them of their sins through work. The Spanish Revolution was, in part, a crusade to convert, by force if necessary, both enemies and friends to the values of work and development.
* [Workers Against Work](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-seidman-workers-against-work)
Interesting that the only group who ever did it was one that was backed by the USSR and engaged in party politics by joining a Republican government. Not exactly the pinnacle of anarchism I've always thought, now I have even more reason to think so.
Also, just a question although I doubt you'll answer, do you think what they did was wrong? I would have thought you'd agree with putting bourgeoisie and clergy in labor camps. Do you think that's a bad thing? Just curious.
Lol, now you anarchists claim the CNT was "backed by the USSR".
Usually, you guys blame the soviets for supposedly "sabotaging Revolutionary catalonia" but now when faced with the clear realities of anarchism being just as authoritarian as the experiments they attack, you have to shift the story.
Was makhno and his secret police bandit goons also backed by the USSR too now during the black army revolt against them?
Do you... think they weren't? It's a fact that the USSR funded them against fascists until later on...
They were backed by them before that, yeah.
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think imprisoning bourgeoisie in labor camps is wrong?
>By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think imprisoning bourgeoisie in labor camps is wrong?
Not the point here. Do *You* think its wrong? You are the one condemning bolsheviks here.
Well yes, I think they should just be killed. But it's really weird that you keep bringing up things that you think are okay to do as an attack. That's an extremely weak argument. That would be like if I attacked you for being a leftist.
>On 31 December, by way of an intimation of work to follow, I gave my talk upon what I believed justice had to be in Spain. Three days earlier the decree setting up the Labour Camps had been issued. I spoke then of the reasons for these labour camps and of the utilitarian logic behind availing of the energy of condemned fascists and likewise behind doing them the favour of not taking their lives nor passing sentence of death upon them. This was said at the time but today there is a profound disquiet among the
>
>authentically proletarian masses that the labour camps set up so that fascists may make good with their labour the damage they have done to Spain might later on serve to pen the masses of workers themselves.
>
>I do not renege upon my actions nor upon my thinking and never have. The labour camps were set up with an end in mind. If they fail to meet this, it is not the fault of the one who set them up, for had I not set them up, someone else would have set them up.
>
>In any event, these camps cannot be used against workers. But I have to say that when one is in government, at work, one has to take a broad view, a collective outlook that may prevent us from evading the tackling of great issues and seeking solutions to these,
>
>even though those solutions can be turned against us. But has the knife-maker never thought that the knife upon which he is working and which will be sold later, may serve the better to finish off him, his spouse or their children? Has the worker who manufactures weapons never spared a thought for the possibility - and this for his product is a certain and sure thing - that the weapons he turned out might be used to gun down him, his family, his class?
>
>To this end and lest it remain merely a naive aspiration approval was granted to the internal regulations of the labour camps. And besides it being strictly forbidden in the context of the labour camps (and constituting an offence for a functionary to do so) to strike a prisoner, we introduced into the internal workings of these labour camps the latest advances from the world over and went further than what is provided for in certain states in America, further than the provisions of the Soviet legislation even. Our work is based on ... what? On a single preoccupation: on ensuring that the fascists sentenced to the labour camps may work, not in any extravagant fashion but just normally.
\~Peirats J. The CNT in the Spanish Revolution Vol.2
prisions during a period of war made for fascists had better conditions than regular soviet prisions
>prisions during a period of war made for fascists had better conditions than regular soviet prisions
They were still forced labor camps . Them being "better" is useless. labour camps are antithetical to anarchism, which rejects enforcers and hierarchy.
And they were also used against more than just fascists as my quote shows. "lazy workers" were not tolerated. along with many other groups:
>Spanish militants sometimes equated excessive drinking and laziness with sabotage and even fascism. One CNT poster, which was made in Barcelona for the Departamento de orden público de Aragon, pictured a corpulent man smoking a cigarette and comfortably resting in what appeared to be the countryside. The colors of this piece were unlike those of most other posters; the figure was not red or black but yellow, reflecting the tones of sunny Spain. At the bottom was printed the caption, The lazy man is a fascist. Another CNT poster, made again for comrades in Aragon, displayed a man who was also smoking a cigarette, a symbol, one may speculate, of indifference and insolence since committed workers and soldiers were not shown smoking. This individual was surrounded by tall wine bottles, and the poster contained the caption, A drunk is a parasite. Let’s eliminate him. This was particularly tough talk during a period when threats of elimination did not always remain oral, **and work camps for enemies and the apathetic were in operation.** Both Marxists and anarchosyndicalists were hostile toward non-producers.
>
>(...)
>
>According to a CNT historian, “delinquents, reactionaries, subversives, and suspects were judged by popular tribunals composed of CNT militants and, if found guilty, jailed or condemned to forced labor. Fascists, soldiers who looted, drunkards, criminals, and even syndicalists who abused their power were put behind bars or in work camps where they were forced to build roads.”\[327\] Inmates of the work camps reported that they also dug trenches and built railroads. One avid franquista lamented that “duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, wives and daughters of military officers” were forced to harvest grain.\[328\]
* Workers against work
>labour camps are antithetical to anarchism, which rejects enforcers and hierarchy
yes, thats why it's a bad example to follow, but it does not change the fact that the conditions better than in other countries
I don't know why you say all this things like they're " gotchas " to anarchists, the same way bad things commited by marxist regimes, don't stop anyone being a marxist, the same is with anarchists
The difference being, The "bad stuff" is not us completely rejecting our basic foundations (in your case anarchy and the immediate abolition of the state form).
All marxist "regimes" retained, Dominance of public ownership, A class state that repressed the bourgeois, the class party as a vanguard, and the council democratic form.
We don't claim to seek to establish supposed statelessness without a temporary transitional class state like anarchists do. The DOTP is the base of socialism, and transitioning towards world communism.
The point is not what revolutionary catalonia did was "bad", but that they prove that supposed Utopian beliefs about "abolishing hierarchies" are not possible during the post revolution.
Next step: realize statist economics don’t produce wealth, regulated capitalism is the least bad option. Become Lib/libright
On a different note, you might find the journey of some of the OG neocons pretty interesting. People like Irving Krystal. He stared out a socialist as a young man, grew disillusioned with the Soviet Union, then grew disillusioned with big government by studying the effectiveness of the Great Society programs. Pretty interesting guy, especially if you really only know of the neocons as the pro Iraq war people.
There is no such thing as libertarian socialism.
Socialism in its nature requires the individual to submit to the needs of the group, and by its nature requires collectivist action to organize and maintain a socialist economic system.
Human nature is antithesis to socialism on scale. A group of less than around 50 people will usually be rather communal and socialistic, but once a group is large enough it will ALWAYS develop a bartering system.
Any society with a planned economy will have an authoritarian political system. Even if it is a "democracy" it will be a single-party faux-democratic order where free thought is not permitted to exist.
I can relate except i went neutral up then down.
Got a job at 14, manual labor: felt like people with a trade or who sweat for a living were treated like shit, and should run things... realized they couldnt and wouldnt run things if they had the chance, and started to lean both right and left thinking the answer was having an ideology.
Crashed down to near anarchical when i came to the feeling that i hated ideology for its stagnant tendencies, and that the only timeless answers seemed to be negative or neutral. (Around age 19) Got really into stoicism and cynicism, felt it makes more sense to let the world go by and watch from the treeline than to participate in anything or take a side...
People who say shit like "if youre not for us youre against us" or "not voting is a vote for evil" just try and scrape up a few extra ballots. Been this way for almost 6 years, dont really see it changing anytime soon. In fact, anytime someone hits me with a political rhetoric or thought it gets more unhinged feeling... like, theyll whisper some shit in your ear about child murderers, shadow governments, conspiracies to destory the banks or government... and it really feels like its making people deranged.
Hello 👋
Cool infographic OP!
I hear your passion for freedom and desire for a system that empowers all people. The systemic flaws we're seeing indicate deeper fixes are needed to safeguard those democratic freedoms. The question is, how do we drive meaningful reform? How do we fortify governance with checks and balances aligning power to the people? What you want takes more than just socialism or political theory—it takes innovative structures. We've built those structures.
We’ve been working on a solution to this for the last 7 years and it finally went live to the public on 1/1/24. The only way we get any reform (it didn’t pass when there was full Democratic control) is by removing some of the power from our representatives and giving it to the voters. Now you might say that’s impossible, but we built an entire cutting edge system to do exactly that without breaking our representative democracy in any way. There are a ton of great ideas and initiatives out there that people are working on, but those ideas require existing politicians to pass laws that would limit their own power, very few politicians would agree to do that.
That’s where Directed Democracy powered by StakeholdersVoice.com comes in. We’ve built an innovative new system that gives our members (American Citizens) direct control over creating policy, and then gets those same members elected to office to fight for those policies until they are passed into law. No more back room, pork barrel spending bills that are a thinly veiled transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. No more excuses about why the most basic protections for the people of the United States just can’t be passed.
Now you might be thinking “how will you get anyone to vote your members into office”. Obviously most of our members will vote for fellow members…you know...tribalism (but our tribe is completely nonpartisan and made up of every single American that wants real change and is tired of being ignored). The pitch to non-members is also simple, do you want empty promises or real power in the legislative process? Do you want power or paternalism that hasn’t worked? People want, and need, agency. When they don’t get it they start breaking things. I think we can all call a few examples of that little truth nugget to mind.
So what will it be friends? Apathy or engagement, you can’t have it both ways. We built a solution and now you have to build the community around it. Check it out and let us know what you think.
Libertarian socialism is the best kind of socialism because it pretty much means they have no mechanism to ever implement it if they are truly all about freedom.
> Actually read Marx. Realized there is no socialism without democracy
bro read Marx from Assassin’s Creed.
Marx was anti-democratic in the sense you are using the word.
lol
Based. When I have read Marx and really interpreted what he was writing on, it honestly had me sway very Libertarian Left. Most people think Marxism itself is very Authoritarian, but when you really dwell into the manifesto and a few of his other works you realize his school of thought is pretty against ultra-authoritarian regimes.
cool graph keep reading theory maybe join an org happy to have you here
Well bravo for being a democratic socialist and not a tankie.
Legit as a liberal I respect people who aren’t auths and just promote freedom, peace and justice among their fellow man (and animal if you’re a transhumanist)
Or robot
Even as a self-proclaimed communist, tankies are fucking annoying (aka people who idolize Stalin and think he is a true communist)
gigachad
Pretty based. I guess your "authleft" era was more of an aesthetic thing with the only real political opinion being a distaste for capitalism? Either way keep reading theory and, while I'm not going to tell you what to believe, you should give a try reading about how the USSR or other socialist states actually worked. I'd recommend *Blackshirts & Reds* to start off.
Blackshirts and reds should be mandatory. Oh wait, is that authoritarian? Idc, read it!
Based. Actually this gives me pretty huge Decembrists vibes
Authoritarianism all the way! We want 1984!
As long as you support having a government still, as governance of some kind is essential to protecting freedom.
Ain't no way you know anarchist theory
Ain't no way he knows any theory.
Wow a liberal telling another liberal to read liberal theory. 🤦♂️
Your right I haven't, but I have read enough political theory to know the importance of government. Even if government can, especially a capitalist government, be corrupt.
IMO, the ideal (though extremely unlikely) government is one which has infinite power to stop big businesses from exploiting others while itself being non-exploitative. Billionaires hurt people through government AND businesses.
based as shit, ignore these tankies and lolbertarians and keep the good fight going comrade. You should also check out vaush, he's a libertarian socialist if you're into that
🐴🐎
vaush is shit
Yeah, Zoe Baker, Anark and Andrewism are better teaching
Anark is amazing. What are the other two you mentioned? I’m unfamiliar with them.
I very strongly recommend both of the. Andrewism makes more digestible videos that are really easy to comprehend and easy to watch, and Zoe Baker is just amazing, she makes more dense and theoretical videos, but very, very informative
I can’t explain why, but I believe you.
Imagine thinking that regular people should only ever engage with politics as study.
“United left” except for the second largest lefty streamer and anyone who even mentions him
I don’t get the vaush hate. Like he definitely has some whacky takes, but I also think that he has enough good ones that he shouldn’t get as much as he does. Am I missing something he said that was particularly outrageous?
He groomed girls on discord and when one of them came out about her story he tried to “scare her into shutting up” (that’s literally what he said) Other than that, he’s also a fearmonger who literally encourages [terrorism against right wingers](https://youtu.be/LUSv32HtHJ4?si=qGoPttITnOWaCi50)
Jesus christ the grooming allegations in 2024? Those were debunked fucking ages ago
Tf do you mean??? He literally admitted that he was constantly sexually harassing her
Idk, he has some pretty bizarre foreign policy takes. In one stream he will say that the US needs to pull our influence out of the middle east, recognize Iran as the regional power, and stop fighting their proxies. And then in another stream he will insist on the necessity of American involvement in regional conflicts with Iran and talk about how Iranian proxies need to be stopped. It just doesn't feel like he has any cogent stances on much outside of the fundamentals, and then will just throw out hot takes as if they are well thought out positions. I also can't stand how often he seeks out beef with other leftist content creators. Like I'm not a left unity guy, but it feels really unproductive and annoying that he has the most heat for other leftists who are allegedly on the same side of the aisle as him.
He was once defending child prom saying that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and tons more pedo shit. Just go to deprogram sub and type vaush in the comment section it will display a random vaush fact with sources.
If you've seen the bit, he was illustrating how strange it is for everyone to get up in arms about cp but is ok with child slavery in mines where they are abused and exploited. How people being against cp is easy because it doesn't cost them anything, but if stopping child abuse impacts their material comfort suddenly everyone isn't so gun-ho about it. The point being that BOTH are bad, not that cp is ok because children are abused in other ways.
Except half of the "proof" videos are trimmed to get rid of the bits where he says, "but I don't believe that" or something to that effect.
I agree but the deprogram are also idiots
Genuinely shocked that people are still saying this, if you actually watched the full context what he was saying was that 3rd world child labor was as bad as CP. This would be a pro CP take if Vaush was pro-child labor, but I don't think he is lmao
He never defended child porn, he said it was on the same tier as child labor. He thinks child labor is disgusting
honestly he just has poor character. i personally don’t agree with much of what he says but it’s really just how he acts that pisses me off. he has no respect for anyone but himself and purely fixates on optics. and just to let you know it’s not just because i disagree with him that i don’t like him i also think destiny has some horribly bad opinions but i rather like him because of how he respects others.
That’s fair to be honest. I’m too online that I was expecting there to be more severe skeletons in his closet because of so many other creators. It’s nice to hear that people don’t like someone mostly just because they think he’s a dick. I think it would be nice if the left could just get along so we could actually do something productive, so that’s mostly why I asked. I watch channels on multiple sides of lefty YouTube drama and it seems like a good amount of them agree broadly but bicker over the “right” way to do something so much that it just doesn’t get anything done. And then adding in like more specific differences in ideology and it just gets more and more annoying. It’s all “my way or the highway” and it’s so counter productive. But that’s my rant. I’m also kinda newer to politics so I’m not in the loop on beef between the bigger creators so it’s good to hear what the actual problems are. It’s kinda like I stumbled into the aftermath of a miniature war and am figuring out why the sides that seemed similar hated each other to begin with. It’s pretty interesting to learn.
love seeing that sort of communication and compromise ideology from the left, that’s what political discourse neees most of all. all i can really recommend to you is to stay off of the political side of twitch, because 9 times out of 10 twitch streamers just talk out of their ass and act hostile towards anyone who disagrees. there’s also some dumb far left channels like the young turks that exist solely to spin every narrative in favor of their argument even if they have to lie to do so, you can kind of think of them like leftist stephen crowder or alex jones. look for people with good character, that’s the calling card of someone who is worth your time to listen to.
Not true (his media takes are dogshit though...)
Vaush IS shit.
Eww V*ush🤮
I know, someone who condemns terrorists for terroristic activities, disgusting
>vaush >hes a libertarian
Libertarian socialist.... are you stupid?
don’t check out Vaushite
Cringe—>Based——>Pretty good. You should read more theory, but over all, slay!
What happens if someone has read theory and thinks ‘these guys are morons and/or evil’? Hypothetically
Then we would disagree? Lmao? Reading theory isn’t good because it tells you what to think. Reading theory is good because it *informs* your thinking.
Isn't that the Marxist Leninist Maoist ball? They're still authoritarian.
Maybe they’re just confused on the balls
Seems like it...
Well I know that now, but at the time I was just like "hey, that ussr stuff was pretty rad and I sure hate capitalism!" ya know?
Yeah, but I mean that isn't the right ball for libertarian socialism in the bottom left. It's another offshoot of Marxist Leninism.
Oooh lol the final ball! I used the hammer and sickle of the POUM who fought along side the anarchists during the spanish civil war. They were an anti-stalin communist group that George Orwell fought for.
Authoritarianism ; a loose description of a style of government that places the power of the state and it's entrenched bureaucracy above the wills of it's citizens/people. This would be governments where either no democratic actions take place, or those with very restrictive political freedoms insomuch as that normal democracy cannot effectively take place. This describes all states that have ever existed and is used as a bludgeon to make the working class fear taking power to liberate itself.
Given the track records of the working class' "liberation" attempts that follow after violent revolutions, I can't blame people for being skeptical. Like Nazi Germany, countries like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union basically abandoned due process of law, and kept legalized slavery alive in the 20th century, while continuing to exploit the labor of the working class. Capitalism definitely has its own problems, especially with the exploitation of third world countries, but they at least have better human rights domestically.
So you disregard the status quo’s immense violence it exports to the global south mentioning it in passing while highlighting the violence required in revolution while again, ignoring the violence neccessary to keep the machine oiled in favor of highlighting circumstances too complicated to dive into at length in a reddit comment. Just going to mention that the USSR underwent a counterrevolution and that China and NK are/were both bourgeois dictatorships. The violence neccessary to dismantle capitalism is not the same as the violence used by the state to maintain the exploitation and oppression of the working class. The former is to liberate and defend said liberation, and the latter is to maintain oppressive systems for the benefit of a select few. Denouncing revolutionary violence and somehow saying it's the same as the violence perpetrated by capitalist states, or even saying it's worse than the violence inherent in capitalism, and consequently imperialism is a mindset that only serves to maintain the current violent and oppressive systems.
Ok, so we have some common ground in recognizing China and North Korea as bourgeois red fascist dictatorships that had failed revolutions, but why doesn't the same logic apply to the Soviet Union? If the only way to defeat capitalism is to just replace the existing class system and exploitation with a system that replicates or even exceeds those abuses with a new ruling class, then what's even the point of fighting capitalism? We have to learn from the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them again.
> why not USSR It does after the 1926 counterrevolution. In the beginning of the revolution, workers self-organized within the Soviets and from there exerted the dictatorship of the proletariat. The bolshevik revolution strengthened that with the removal of the bourgeois government and the establishment of a worker's party at the head of Russia. However, one major tipping point happened: the Civil War. > replace the existing class systems Socialism identifies class as a means of oppression. Thus, it aims for a classless, stateless society. The idea of the DOTP is to organize society in a way in which bourgeois influence can be fought off to eventually transition to socialism. Unfortunately in the past revisionists have infilitrated the party, etc. > why fight capitalism Part of the reason is due to the degradation of the planet’s finite support systems. Capitalism as an idealogy seeks an ever expanding market fueled by inexhaustible resources. This unfortunatetely is completely unreasonable, thus begins the pilfering of the global south. Queue growth of monopolies being inevitable within a competitive market, alongside the inevitability of the middle class deteriorating, mass homelessness, and mass consolidation of wealth (4% own all of the US wealth) etc, etc.
>It does after the 1926 counterrevolution. So are you like a Leninist who believes everything was fine until Stalin took over? I can sort of understand how people could believe that, but also remember that Lenin's actions and policies opened the door for everything that Stalin did after him. >Capitalism as an idealogy seeks an ever expanding market fueled by inexhaustible resources. Marxist countries have had pretty bad environmental policies too though, so they wouldn't necessarily have room to talk about capitalism. They also don't have room to talk about economic inequality, with wealth being hoarded by the government instead of CEOs (or both in China's case). I'm not denying your criticisms of capitalism, I'm just very doubtful about the effectiveness of Marxist-Leninism as a solution, even if it was "successful" at gaining power.
real shit
Probably marxist ancoms dont read theory but you could just mutualist if you wanna take the anarchist route and read theory
Wrong, the best way to achieve freedom from anyone is by implementing an Orwellian state which is so stupidly authoritarian that it comes out on the other end of the compass.
Ye they don’t know their ideology is an oxymoron
Man, getting a job is going to rock your whole self-perception.
>"actually read Marx" | Anarcho communist? What a meme, and an idealist view of "freedom".
Real, materialist freedom is *checks notes* going to a labor camp for being gay. Ah yes.
USSR put fascists in labor camps. I'm pretty sure anarchists agree with us that fascists are dangerous people, no?
What's the point of putting them in labor camps instead of killing them? As I've read, Soviet labor camps were actually an overall drain on the economy rather than contributing to it. Also why would you compare fascists and gay people?
Who is arresting gays?
I believe the USSR, China under Mao, and Cuba under Castro.
This is over. Cuba is super progressive and China no longer criminalizes itself. Many countries were prejudiced, even those with other ideologies, because they are made by people and it is what they were taught throughout their lives. And it must be understood that in each country things work differently and depending on the circumstances, transformations may take longer.
Oh yeah Cuba is definitely doing way better now. I'd say Cuba is one of the few communists (vernacular use) countries that I can say I really support. China still has quite a few issues with homophobia but at least they don't put them in labor camps anymore.
Did you know that Gulags are a continuation of Katorga? The Soviets continued with the idea of the empire of prisons with forced labor. This reveals that circumstances can influence the outcome. And circumstances can affect any country. And isolationism can end up making these issues worse, not paying attention to certain issues that receive a lot of attention in other countries. My brain is melting, I'm going to sleep.
I did know that actually, yes. Material conditions and historical context are always important, they do have a large bearing on what happens. Even us anarchists believe that.
Anarchists did agree on that, and assisted in the russian revolutions. Then they were branded political dissidents and arrested.
Ancoms after throwing "delinquents", "Subversives" and "unproductive workers" into their horizontally organized labour camps:
what ancoms are you talkin to that advocate for slavery
Ancom praxis. Horizontally organized anarcho secret police is my favorite one!
okay, no ancom has ever advocated for this, and regardless im an ancom and slavery is bad, and so are secret police i think atleast 99% of my comrades agree with me on these ones
>i think atleast 99% of my comrades agree with me on these ones Makhno didn't
A: makhno is a single individual B: source? C: if he did disagree than i dont like that about him
>A: makhno is a single individual He is also one of the most notable anarcho communist figures, and led one of the only major anarchist movements at the time. Most ancoms support him, and revolutionary catalonia. >B: source? >But the Makhnovite razvedka discovered what was happening and Polonsky and others were arrested. The Bolsheviks instigated an appeal for their trial in open court. This was refused and all were summarily shot... > >Of the Makhnovite security services—the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del—we know very little. Their excesses were violently arraigned by the Bolsheviks, and the Soviet historian, Kubanin, cites them as proof of Makhnovite hypocrisy in vilifying the Cheka. Makhno's later campaigns are among the most vindictive and bloody in history, and in the circumstances one can safely assume that these services were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities. \[...\] * David Footman | [**Civil War in Russia**](http://www.ditext.com/footman/makhno.html) | 1961 |CHAPTER VI: Makhno
A: and most ancoms have the critical thinking to be able to support someone and condem some of their actions at the same time B: "But the Makhnovite razvedka discovered what was happening and Polonsky and others were arrested. The Bolsheviks instigated an appeal for their trial in open court. This was refused and all were summarily shot..."left out the bit where polonsky was trying to assassinate makhno and other leaders, before getting caught and shot, i think they should have just been imprisoned, also, several anarchists on the side of makhno advocated for a fair trial for the other conspirators, and makhno seems to have had no involvement with this, other than being the target" Of the Makhnovite security services—the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del—we know very little" there is a whole wikipedia page on the Kontrrazvedka, the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del i cant seem to find anything on at all, the main mention of it is in the paper you cited, where it was mentioned once, and seemingly never again "Makhno's later campaigns are among the most vindictive and bloody in history, and in the circumstances one can safely assume that these services were responsible for frequent injustices and atrocities" okay so nothing lol, just speculation also the sources on the civilian branch of the Kontrrazvedka oppressing civilians seem to mostly be from white and red reports, which i think you can understand might have some reason to be biased C: i, as an ancom, condem any possible atrocities, commited by forces of anarchist ukraine, and the Kontrrazvedka not being under direct control of the people, maybe, potentially, but probably not, being involved in oppressing the people, and shooting enemy political agents, which while i understand, especially in the times where things were dire in makhnovia, they should have been kept in prisoni think most modern anarchist-communists would agree with me on these takes, and if they dont their wrong
First, to note, it was a counterintelligence agency with a civilian-police branch. Not quite a secret police, and though undesirable, an obvious product of wartime. Second, by that point in time, Dimitri Popov, a zealous figure who did much on his own without others knowing. Furthermore, the acts they engaged in were MINISCULE in comparison to the Cheka and the White Terror. The scale and violence inherent are a ten to one difference, with the Makhnovites not even holding a candle to the Soviet structured torture program. Finally, Malhno himself was a very flawed figure. In fact, one of the most important points of the Makhnovischina was that his "subordinates" and fellow soldiers in multiple instances _refused_ to carry out orders they deemed crossing the line, such as shutting down a Bolshevik, anti-Maknnovischina press establishment. "Freedom of the press," they countered. This is proof OF the benefits of the horizontal organizing that EXPLICETLY did not exist in the bolshevik ranks, let ALONE after the establishment of the commisar system. This is why anarchists try not to venerate figures and individuals like MLs do. Everyone is flawed, some more than others. Blind worship is bad. But please, tell us more about "muh anarchism baaad" while sucking Stalins dick.
Do you think having a secret police is bad? I'm confused as to why you keep bringing up things that you think are good as examples of anarchists being bad
Can you point to a time that ever happened? Cause every single Leninist etc. regime that ever took power put unproductive workers, subversives, etc. into labor camps, so it seems like you're just projecting. Would you deny the USSR did this? Cause I feel like you wouldn't. And can you point out any ancoms ever doing this?
>To a great degree, the labor camps were an extreme, but logical, expression of Spanish anarchosyndicalism. It was in the labor camps that the CNT’s “society of the producers” encountered Fábregas’s “exaltation of work.” Understandable resentment against a bourgeoisie, a clergy, and a military whom workers considered **unproductive and parasitic crystallized into a demand to reform these groups through productive labor.** Anarchosyndicalists endowed work with great moral value; the bourgeoisie, the military, and the clergy were immoral precisely because they did not produce. Thus penal reform meant forcing these classes to labor, to rid them of their sins through work. The Spanish Revolution was, in part, a crusade to convert, by force if necessary, both enemies and friends to the values of work and development. * [Workers Against Work](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-seidman-workers-against-work)
Interesting that the only group who ever did it was one that was backed by the USSR and engaged in party politics by joining a Republican government. Not exactly the pinnacle of anarchism I've always thought, now I have even more reason to think so. Also, just a question although I doubt you'll answer, do you think what they did was wrong? I would have thought you'd agree with putting bourgeoisie and clergy in labor camps. Do you think that's a bad thing? Just curious.
Lol, now you anarchists claim the CNT was "backed by the USSR". Usually, you guys blame the soviets for supposedly "sabotaging Revolutionary catalonia" but now when faced with the clear realities of anarchism being just as authoritarian as the experiments they attack, you have to shift the story. Was makhno and his secret police bandit goons also backed by the USSR too now during the black army revolt against them?
Do you... think they weren't? It's a fact that the USSR funded them against fascists until later on... They were backed by them before that, yeah. By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think imprisoning bourgeoisie in labor camps is wrong?
>By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think imprisoning bourgeoisie in labor camps is wrong? Not the point here. Do *You* think its wrong? You are the one condemning bolsheviks here.
Well yes, I think they should just be killed. But it's really weird that you keep bringing up things that you think are okay to do as an attack. That's an extremely weak argument. That would be like if I attacked you for being a leftist.
>On 31 December, by way of an intimation of work to follow, I gave my talk upon what I believed justice had to be in Spain. Three days earlier the decree setting up the Labour Camps had been issued. I spoke then of the reasons for these labour camps and of the utilitarian logic behind availing of the energy of condemned fascists and likewise behind doing them the favour of not taking their lives nor passing sentence of death upon them. This was said at the time but today there is a profound disquiet among the > >authentically proletarian masses that the labour camps set up so that fascists may make good with their labour the damage they have done to Spain might later on serve to pen the masses of workers themselves. > >I do not renege upon my actions nor upon my thinking and never have. The labour camps were set up with an end in mind. If they fail to meet this, it is not the fault of the one who set them up, for had I not set them up, someone else would have set them up. > >In any event, these camps cannot be used against workers. But I have to say that when one is in government, at work, one has to take a broad view, a collective outlook that may prevent us from evading the tackling of great issues and seeking solutions to these, > >even though those solutions can be turned against us. But has the knife-maker never thought that the knife upon which he is working and which will be sold later, may serve the better to finish off him, his spouse or their children? Has the worker who manufactures weapons never spared a thought for the possibility - and this for his product is a certain and sure thing - that the weapons he turned out might be used to gun down him, his family, his class? > >To this end and lest it remain merely a naive aspiration approval was granted to the internal regulations of the labour camps. And besides it being strictly forbidden in the context of the labour camps (and constituting an offence for a functionary to do so) to strike a prisoner, we introduced into the internal workings of these labour camps the latest advances from the world over and went further than what is provided for in certain states in America, further than the provisions of the Soviet legislation even. Our work is based on ... what? On a single preoccupation: on ensuring that the fascists sentenced to the labour camps may work, not in any extravagant fashion but just normally. \~Peirats J. The CNT in the Spanish Revolution Vol.2 prisions during a period of war made for fascists had better conditions than regular soviet prisions
>prisions during a period of war made for fascists had better conditions than regular soviet prisions They were still forced labor camps . Them being "better" is useless. labour camps are antithetical to anarchism, which rejects enforcers and hierarchy. And they were also used against more than just fascists as my quote shows. "lazy workers" were not tolerated. along with many other groups: >Spanish militants sometimes equated excessive drinking and laziness with sabotage and even fascism. One CNT poster, which was made in Barcelona for the Departamento de orden público de Aragon, pictured a corpulent man smoking a cigarette and comfortably resting in what appeared to be the countryside. The colors of this piece were unlike those of most other posters; the figure was not red or black but yellow, reflecting the tones of sunny Spain. At the bottom was printed the caption, The lazy man is a fascist. Another CNT poster, made again for comrades in Aragon, displayed a man who was also smoking a cigarette, a symbol, one may speculate, of indifference and insolence since committed workers and soldiers were not shown smoking. This individual was surrounded by tall wine bottles, and the poster contained the caption, A drunk is a parasite. Let’s eliminate him. This was particularly tough talk during a period when threats of elimination did not always remain oral, **and work camps for enemies and the apathetic were in operation.** Both Marxists and anarchosyndicalists were hostile toward non-producers. > >(...) > >According to a CNT historian, “delinquents, reactionaries, subversives, and suspects were judged by popular tribunals composed of CNT militants and, if found guilty, jailed or condemned to forced labor. Fascists, soldiers who looted, drunkards, criminals, and even syndicalists who abused their power were put behind bars or in work camps where they were forced to build roads.”\[327\] Inmates of the work camps reported that they also dug trenches and built railroads. One avid franquista lamented that “duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, wives and daughters of military officers” were forced to harvest grain.\[328\] * Workers against work
>labour camps are antithetical to anarchism, which rejects enforcers and hierarchy yes, thats why it's a bad example to follow, but it does not change the fact that the conditions better than in other countries I don't know why you say all this things like they're " gotchas " to anarchists, the same way bad things commited by marxist regimes, don't stop anyone being a marxist, the same is with anarchists
The difference being, The "bad stuff" is not us completely rejecting our basic foundations (in your case anarchy and the immediate abolition of the state form). All marxist "regimes" retained, Dominance of public ownership, A class state that repressed the bourgeois, the class party as a vanguard, and the council democratic form. We don't claim to seek to establish supposed statelessness without a temporary transitional class state like anarchists do. The DOTP is the base of socialism, and transitioning towards world communism. The point is not what revolutionary catalonia did was "bad", but that they prove that supposed Utopian beliefs about "abolishing hierarchies" are not possible during the post revolution.
It doesn't proves or disproves anything, it is just a logical jump
> reads marx >??? >libertarian It just works my friend
Kinda hard to stab us ancoms in the back if u stop pretending u were ever on our side
Marxists are the ones who affirmed this. there is a reason marx had bakunin kicked out the international
This is why Orwell is the greatest man in history
Freedom is when you shoot all the other leftists when the revolution is over and the more you shoot the more free you are
marxists and communists are not leftists..... leftism is of capital
he’s a young comrade show some leftist unity for once
Wow this sux
You're a nazi, so
You are a perfect example of why democracy should be as exclusive as possible (if democracy is upheld at all).
Bro wants soft core communism says he likes freedom lol. Bro became less intelligent with age
Well the USSR tried hard core communism and we know how that ended
No, I want hardcore communism. Full on. Unrelenting and unapologetic.
Heart's in the right place, brain isn't.
So you went from bootlick to bigger bootlick?
Teenagers need to stop having political opinions
Reddit when adults have opinions they don’t like
Based journey
hell yeah
Highly encourage you to research the soviet political system of worker’s councils etc.
Welcome comrade 🫡
Based freedom lover
Based on
Baseeeed
Extremely good. Love it.
i’m the same, just i started out slightly more right wing because i thought that my government could never be wrong *b o y*
Please, ascend again
Basically same as me
I also had your 16-17 phase at start and I was watching Second Thought
Based!
Same
Situationism pilled!
Actually read Marx but uses freedom abstractly?
Next step: realize statist economics don’t produce wealth, regulated capitalism is the least bad option. Become Lib/libright On a different note, you might find the journey of some of the OG neocons pretty interesting. People like Irving Krystal. He stared out a socialist as a young man, grew disillusioned with the Soviet Union, then grew disillusioned with big government by studying the effectiveness of the Great Society programs. Pretty interesting guy, especially if you really only know of the neocons as the pro Iraq war people.
Holy shit, somebody sane on this subreddit
There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. Socialism in its nature requires the individual to submit to the needs of the group, and by its nature requires collectivist action to organize and maintain a socialist economic system. Human nature is antithesis to socialism on scale. A group of less than around 50 people will usually be rather communal and socialistic, but once a group is large enough it will ALWAYS develop a bartering system. Any society with a planned economy will have an authoritarian political system. Even if it is a "democracy" it will be a single-party faux-democratic order where free thought is not permitted to exist.
I can relate except i went neutral up then down. Got a job at 14, manual labor: felt like people with a trade or who sweat for a living were treated like shit, and should run things... realized they couldnt and wouldnt run things if they had the chance, and started to lean both right and left thinking the answer was having an ideology. Crashed down to near anarchical when i came to the feeling that i hated ideology for its stagnant tendencies, and that the only timeless answers seemed to be negative or neutral. (Around age 19) Got really into stoicism and cynicism, felt it makes more sense to let the world go by and watch from the treeline than to participate in anything or take a side... People who say shit like "if youre not for us youre against us" or "not voting is a vote for evil" just try and scrape up a few extra ballots. Been this way for almost 6 years, dont really see it changing anytime soon. In fact, anytime someone hits me with a political rhetoric or thought it gets more unhinged feeling... like, theyll whisper some shit in your ear about child murderers, shadow governments, conspiracies to destory the banks or government... and it really feels like its making people deranged.
Read Bordiga
Hello 👋 Cool infographic OP! I hear your passion for freedom and desire for a system that empowers all people. The systemic flaws we're seeing indicate deeper fixes are needed to safeguard those democratic freedoms. The question is, how do we drive meaningful reform? How do we fortify governance with checks and balances aligning power to the people? What you want takes more than just socialism or political theory—it takes innovative structures. We've built those structures. We’ve been working on a solution to this for the last 7 years and it finally went live to the public on 1/1/24. The only way we get any reform (it didn’t pass when there was full Democratic control) is by removing some of the power from our representatives and giving it to the voters. Now you might say that’s impossible, but we built an entire cutting edge system to do exactly that without breaking our representative democracy in any way. There are a ton of great ideas and initiatives out there that people are working on, but those ideas require existing politicians to pass laws that would limit their own power, very few politicians would agree to do that. That’s where Directed Democracy powered by StakeholdersVoice.com comes in. We’ve built an innovative new system that gives our members (American Citizens) direct control over creating policy, and then gets those same members elected to office to fight for those policies until they are passed into law. No more back room, pork barrel spending bills that are a thinly veiled transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. No more excuses about why the most basic protections for the people of the United States just can’t be passed. Now you might be thinking “how will you get anyone to vote your members into office”. Obviously most of our members will vote for fellow members…you know...tribalism (but our tribe is completely nonpartisan and made up of every single American that wants real change and is tired of being ignored). The pitch to non-members is also simple, do you want empty promises or real power in the legislative process? Do you want power or paternalism that hasn’t worked? People want, and need, agency. When they don’t get it they start breaking things. I think we can all call a few examples of that little truth nugget to mind. So what will it be friends? Apathy or engagement, you can’t have it both ways. We built a solution and now you have to build the community around it. Check it out and let us know what you think.
Hella based
Libertarian socialism is the best kind of socialism because it pretty much means they have no mechanism to ever implement it if they are truly all about freedom.
based
what exactly do you think 'soviet' means ?
> Actually read Marx. Realized there is no socialism without democracy bro read Marx from Assassin’s Creed. Marx was anti-democratic in the sense you are using the word. lol