Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism?
I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?
Also, gotta love the whole "I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that's what anarchism is about". Like, buddy, you haven't read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.
If you want something actionable, then yes it actually does matter what they are. Calling them "oppressors" is not enough, you need to understand the mechanisms of that oppression, and that invariably leads you back to class because it is the most fundamental feature of oppression across human society since before the invention of writing.
I've seen many excuses for avoiding studying the subject of class, but fundamentally it just falls into hypocritical mischaracterizations (deriding it as "vague," when you unfortunately pride yourself on vagueness) and lifestylism ("my analysis is anarchic" is not a reason). You have yet to actually refute there being a practical need to develop a solid understanding of this topic.
I don't want to. It seems like a lot of work for very little gain. I know what I'm up against. I know what I need to do to combat it. The first step in that process is going to give me more insight and change my mind anyway. My time is much better spent practising how to interact with others and trying to gain more understanding of revolutionary customs and cultures.
You literally do not know what you are up against nor, by your own profession of vagueness and refusal to embrace a militant ideology, do you know what you need to do to combat it. You have some words for things, but those words stand-in for vast systems that need to be studied to be properly opposed, rather than taking the route of (for example) the utopian socialists and saying that all that we see in society is wrong and we shall birth a new world entirely by our own reason, ignoring how our reason is truncated by the existing system or how material reality constrains what is achievable at any point in time, to say nothing of the mechanisms of actually instituting whatever utopia it is. The value of Marxist analysis is having a framework for specifically answering these questions that utopians failed to.
Additionally, if you don't do investigation on your own and think critically about these matters, then you can just be taken in by any sophist who says radical-sounding horseshit. This idea of waiting in epistemic suspense, "vagueness" as you call it, is a misbegotten attempt at epistemic humility. You don't develop an understanding by just sort of accepting a bunch of contradictory things and saying "so true, bestie," you develop an understanding by putting forward specific theories and testing them, and refining from your best available understanding. You don't just shrug, you take a specific position and accept that it will probably need to change with new information.
Ok. let's try that again. Don't worry this is probably my last time (I'm getting rather tired):
I know what I'm up against.
Archy
The belief that society must be divided hierarchically. That there must be a relationship of command and subordination in order for society to function.
Polity
That humans should belong to distinct groups with distinct rulers chosen by some method. The groups have their own written rules and members cannot join this group without some initiation ceremony or leave this group by their own will.
and the methods they use to enforce their control:
I know what I need to do to combat it.
As step 1 says everything after it will probably change as soon as I reach it (which is why I haven't really brought it up).
And this is just one instance of me describing it. Next time it will be changed, it may even be completely different. My ideology exists in my brain, and my brain exists in a constant state of change. This is a snapshot influenced by my mood and what I can remember. Don't think this is all that I believe/know (it definitely isn't) or even accurate tomorrow.
I appreciate the effort that you put into writing out a description, it makes things much easier to talk about. Here are some criticisms to consider:
As an overarching one that I don't think you'll be that interested in but which I still think is useful: You're starting from abstract concepts of political philosophy (concepts which are important to understand, to be clear), but these philosophical concepts and beliefs are not what your primary enemy is, actual political groups in the world are what your primary enemy is, and an analysis of what they are needs to begin not in terms of the rhetoric they use to try to intellectual justify themselves, but in the material reality of how they operate and, critically, why, which is not covered by these concepts you describe. They use various ideas, e.g. racism, to justify their actions, but their actions fundamentally aren't stemming from racism, racism is a tool used to get people to fight for them. Their interests are very consistently material benefit, achieved by control of the means of production (land, factories, etc.). It is only be breaking down that relation that you can defeat them.
Among the merits of Marxism is that it makes a great deal of effort to start from concrete, atomic facts about the physical world rather than moral assertions.
Something that is frustrating to me is that you admit that you don't really understand Marxism or class analysis but then dismiss it. Even if it is wrong, it is worth understanding, but beyond that it's quite interesting that for someone who is so prideful of their epistemic suspense ("vagueness"), you dismiss historically significant political theory that you admit that you don't understand out of hand. Don't you suppose that there might be a bias at work there?
Something that I think that you under-emphasize here is the coercion that lies beneath the surface, because the bourgeoisie control the means of production (including the vast majority of means of survival), forcing people into these social contracts by denying them the ability to survive on their own. It's not just about being allowed into society or not, there is nowhere that humanity in general can escape to to avoid a planet that is controlled by the ruling class.
Sure, though I think it's worth stressing that you should develop an epistemic method so you aren't just flitting between ideas on the basis of vibes or social pressure, and so that independent thought gives you an ability to resist radical-sounding rhetoric. This "vagueness" that you pride yourself on is a fundamental failure in your capacity to try to combat oppression.
This isn't realistic. Make cooperatives if you like, but they don't actually exist without the previously mentioned elements. You cannot escape it unless you are just living in an autarkic commune, and even then you are still subject to bourgeois laws and so on and are hardly accomplishing more than living like a primitivist for a sense of moral purity.
Without substantiation, it is wishful thinking to believe that you have the capacity to get to that point.
No, this is the worst thing you've said. Capitalists demand ever-increasing profits. Imagining just for fun that you have a meaningful stronghold, that's an impediment to market penetration along with a political thorn in their side. It is not a matter of if they try to destroy you, but when. You must destroy reactionary systems to the greatest extent possible or you are just giving them ground that they will keep taking until they steamroll you.
Anyway, if you want to drop this thread, fair enough. I still need to get around to replying to the comments you initially left me.